English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The basic notion that poverty should be measured on the basis of as large a number of components (attributes) as relevant and feasible has enjoyed increasing support in the literature. Since the seminal work of Townsend (1979), it has been recognized that other aspects of life not necessarily related to income can impair human development, such as the access to public goods, health, or education. Many authors have come up with new approaches to provide poverty measures which account for its multidimensionality while maintaining desirable properties (Bourguignon and Chakravarty, 1999, 2003; Atkinson, 2003). One main conceptual issue is how to count multidimensional poverty. In other words, is multidimensional poverty the accumulation of deprivation in various components of what is considered ‘normal life’ (the intersection approach) or should it be defined as the failure to access to at least one of the dimensions (the union approach)?

A Cluster Analysis of Multidimensional Poverty in Switzerland