Measuring Local Poverty Without Linked Household Data: Bounding What You Can't Observe

A method for estimating multidimensional poverty at local level when you can't link census and service data at household level. Sharp bounds replace false precision.

Imagine you're trying to figure out which students in a school are failing multiple subjects — but you only have two gradebooks that can't be matched to individual students. One tells you how many kids in each classroom failed math; the other tells you how many failed reading. You know the classroom totals, but you can't see which kids failed both. This paper solves exactly that problem, applied to poverty measurement. The committed claim: you can produce meaningful local multidimensional poverty estimates from incomplete data by pairing an independence-based point estimate with sharp Fréchet–Hoeffding bounds over all possible joint distributions consistent with the observed marginals. The authors demonstrate this on North Macedonia, combining settlement-level service-access data with municipal-level census data that cannot be linked at the household level. The result is not a single number pretending to be precise, but an interval — nationally, 5.01% of households are multidimensionally poor under independence, bounded between 2.01% and 17.44%. The architecture is classical statistics, not machine learning. The method uses the Alkire-Foster MPI framework as its measurement backbone, then applies Fréchet bounds from probability theory to bracket what you don't know about how deprivations overlap within households. This is a bounding approach: rather than imputing missing joint distributions (which requires assumptions you can't verify), you compute the best and worst cases consistent with your marginals. The compute cost is negligible — this runs on a laptop. The intellectual cost is in the indicator construction and data harmonization. The ladder question matters here. The Global MPI covers 100+ countries but only at national or regional level. This paper's contribution is pushing to settlement and municipality level in a country the Global MPI covers only coarsely. The validation is done against three external benchmarks: official at-risk-of-poverty rates, the Global MPI itself, and a fieldwork-based deprivation index from the UNDP. The socio-economic component correlates well with all three; the geographic remoteness component captures something the others miss, which is either a genuine added dimension or a confound — the paper argues the former. Integrity is mixed. The validation is internal — same-team comparisons against published statistics, not a pre-registered exercise. The indicator selection draws on expert judgment and prior literature, but the specific thresholds (which services count as deprived, at what level) involve researcher degrees of freedom. The authors are transparent about the width of their bounds, which is commendable — a 2% to 17% range is honest about uncertainty rather than hiding it. But the independence assumption used for the point estimate is itself unvalidated; the entire point of the bounds is that you don't know the true dependence structure. The practical payoff is real but bounded. For a country like North Macedonia — or any country where census microdata isn't linkable to service-access data — this gives policymakers a tool to identify which municipalities are almost certainly poor (above the upper bound everywhere else) and which are almost certainly not. The finding that small rural municipalities dominate the poverty distribution holds across all dependence assumptions, which is the strongest kind of result this method can produce. Where bounds are wide, the method tells you exactly how much you don't know. The successor question is obvious: link the data. North Macedonia could, in principle, build a household-level survey that covers both socioeconomic and geographic indicators simultaneously, allowing direct MPI computation and a test of whether the independence assumption over- or under-estimates true poverty. The authors likely didn't do this because it requires fieldwork infrastructure and funding far beyond a methods paper. The next methodological step would be applying copula models or small-area estimation to tighten the bounds — trading assumptions for narrower intervals.