The Multidimensional Poverty Index takes into consideration factors such as access to education, nutrition, clean water, and electricity. Photo: isafmedia (flickr)

Global poverty just rose by 21 percent, if you take into account “multidimensional poverty,” according to a recent The Christian Science Monitor article.

The Multidimensional Poverty Index, or MPI, is the result of collaboration between the United Nations and the Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative (OPHI). The 2010 UN Human Development Report uses the MPI alongside its other poverty and inequality indexes to achieve a more accurate definition of poverty.

Instead of placing the focus on income per capita, the MPI also takes into account factors like access to health care, nutrition, education, sanitation and other basic necessities. In fact, the MPI measures and combines ten indicators, with poverty defined as lacking three or more of the factors.

This new definition includes those who may be above the poverty line but still lack basic needs. For example, in Ethiopia, the OPHI says that "… 39 percent of people live on less than $1.25 a day. But 90 percent are ‘multidimensionally poor,’ or lacking at least three of the 10 indicators." See the OPHI press report for more information and statistics that demonstrate how the MPI changes the demographic of poverty in several countries.

Jeni Klugman and Sabina Alkire created the MPI because they wanted a more comprehensive way to measure poverty. "The point is you can have rapid progress on the income poverty side without commensurate progress on other side," and "[t]here are some things money can't buy... It might not buy electricity; it might not buy a public health system, or an education system," they explain to The Christian Science Monitor correspondent, Jina Moore. (You can follow Moore's personal blog, where she documents current events and issues in the African Great Lakes region and the continent as a whole.)

While the MPI marks an improvement over the previous methods of poverty measurement, many experts still find fault with it. Critics argue that the MPI is still an oversimplification of what it means to be poor. One opponent, Don Stillers, an economist for USAID, argues for "the ongoing need to pay attention to evidence on each major dimension of poverty in each country we work in," rather than depending on a single standardized system of measurement, reports the The Christian Science Monitor.

Though the MPI is not a perfect assessment of poverty, it could enable a more complete and effective evaluation of global poverty. To learn more about MPI's poverty rankings, check out this interactive map.