Global Journal of Human Social Science, E: Economics, Volume 22 Issue 2

ln ic = 0 + + + ( + ) ln + + (4) The mentioned authors take the equation (4) as a reference for their analysis. From the equations that make up this adaptation, they estimate, by at least squares method, the effects of some of those that for us can be understood as the conceptual components of the poverty penalty. Thus, equation (4) is used to measure the poverty penalty, controlled for the quantity effect. With data from 11,497 households interviewed about the “Familias en Acción” Program, in 122 municipalities in rural Colombia, from June to October 2002, the authors run their equations and from its conclusions we highlight the following as a teaching piece of measurements made from the poverty penalty as discussed in this article: controlled for quality, the coefficient that indicates the quantity effect increases, relative to when the control is not performed, but remains negative and significant. From this it can be inferred that the quantity effect is affected by quality standards, so that for a given “level” of quality, poverty is penalized for buying smaller quantities of similar goods. Considering that this result was obtained for a basket of food (rice, carrots and beans) and that the same result was only confirmed individually for rice, one can think that the way it was applied, the test can actually serve to the verification of the presence or absence of the penalty of poverty. The theoretical framework of Attanasio & Frayne (2006) can serve to test the poverty penalty not only in terms of the quantity effect, but if controlled for price and institutional characteristics, if the equations are combined in the equilibrium condition through not the price, but quantity, for example. B ibliography 1. Alcaly, R. & Klevorick, A. Food Prices in Relation to Income Levels in New York City, Journal of Business, 1971, 44, 40-46. 2. Attanasio, Orazio & Frayne, Christine (2006). Do the poor pay more? Paper presented at the 8th BREAD Conference, Ithaca, New York. 3. Caplovitz, D., 1967, The Poor Pay More, New York: Free Press. 4. Crawford, I., F. Laisney and I. Preston (2003): “Estimation of household demand systems with theoretically compatible Engel curves and unit value specifications”, Journal of Econometrics, 114, 221–41. 5. Dalsace, Frédéric, Charles-Edouard Vincent, Jacques Berger, and François Dalens. "The Poverty Penalty in France: How the Market Makes Low- Income Populations Poorer." Field Actions Science Reports (2012) https://journals.openedition.org/fact sreports/1537 6. Davies, Sara & Finney, Andrea & Hartfree, Yvette. Paying to be poor: uncovering the scale and nature of the poverty premium. University of Bristol Working Paper, November 2016. 7. Deaton, A.S. (1988): “Quality, quantity and spatial variation of price”, American Economic Review, 78, 418–43. 8. Deaton, A.S. (1997): The Analysis of Household Surveys: A Microeconometric Approach to Development Policy, John Hopkins University Press for the World Bank. 9. Europe Economics and New Policy Institute, 2010, Markets and Households on Low Incomes, Office of Fair Trading. 10. Goodman, Charles S. Do the Poor Pay More? Journal of Marketing, 1968, 32, 18-24. 11. Hirsch, Donald. 2019. “Addressing the Poverty Premium: Approaches to Regulation”. Figshare. https://hdl.handle.net/2134/16999. 12. Kunreuther, Howard (1972), "Why The Poor May Pay More For Food: Theoretical And Empirical Evidence", in Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 660-678. 13. Mendoza, Ronald U. "Why Do the Poor Pay More? Exploring the Poverty Penalty Concept." Journal of International Development 23.1 (2011): 1-28. 14. Prahalad CK. 2005. Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty through Profits. Wharton School Publishing: Philadelphia, Penn. 15. Williams, Frances (ed). Why the Poor Pay More. London and Basingstoke. The Macmillan Press Ltd. 1977. [1] Professor at the Department of Economics at the Federal University of Sergipe, Brazil. profwn@hotmail.com , wnecon@academico.ufs.br [2] “Cost disparities between BOP consumers and the rich in the same economy” (Prahalad, 2005, p. 12) [3] “The poverty penalty could be simply defined as relatively higher cost shouldered by the poor, when compared to the rich, in their participation in certain markets”. (Mendoza, 2011, p. 2). [4] Mendoza, op. cit, p. two. [5] As we will see later, the term “poverty penalty” is only coined in Prahalad (2005), long after, therefore, Caplovitz’s best-known work, which dates from 1963, even so, according to the characteristics that make up that concept, we can consider the work of Caplovitz (1963) in the same perspective. [6] The author himself makes clear his adherence to that approach, citing it several times and also for dealing with it as his object of study. [7] Consultation made in January 2022 in the database of the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES), in Brazil. Capes is a © 2022 Global Journals Volume XXII Issue II Version I 27 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2022 E Poverty Penalty: A Market-Based Review