NON-MONETARY POVERTY MEASUREMENT IN MALAYSIAN ISLAMIC INSTITUTIONS: AN ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE* Mohamed Saladin Abdul Rasool 1 Mohd Fauzi Mohd Harun 2 Ariffin Mohd Salleh 3 1 Senior Lecturer, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM ) 2 Assoc. Prof., Faculty of Business Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) 3 Assoc. Prof. at the Faculty of Business Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) saladin@melaka.uitm.edu.my ABSTRACT Islamic institutions in Malaysia play a variety of socioeconomic roles such as poverty alleviation. To perform this role, these institutions face a major task in identifying the poverty group. Most of these institutions measure and operationalize poverty from the monetary perspective using variables such as income, expenditure or consumption. In practice, most Islamic institutions in Malaysia use the monetary approach in measuring poverty through the conventional Poverty Line Income (PLI) method. From an Islamic perspective, scholars outline the self-sufficiency for an individual as the availability of basic food and drinks, shelter and other basic needs as defined by the society in which he or she belongs to. This broad definition gives room to researchers to examine and deliberate various components of basic needs of an individual or household to attain certain standard of living. The objective of the paper is to present a non-monetary poverty measurement from an Islamic perspective. The proposed Islamic Poverty Indicator (IPI) consists of maqasid-al sharia (objective of the religion) elements, namely religion, knowledge, physical-self, offspring and wealth. The IPI, calculated using the weighted index method is expected to exemplify poverty from a multidimensional perspective. In addition, a comparison would be made with the existing PLI method. This microdata study would highlight the similarities and differences of both the methods. A survey aided by a structured questionnaire developed using expert review was carried out on 258 selected head of households in the state of Selangor, the most populated state in Malaysia. Besides descriptive analysis, the paper identify several deprivation indicators using the IPI. In addition, the poverty groups identified from each of the methods were highlighted. Keywords: Poverty, measurements, multidimensional, monetary indicators 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
Islamic institutions in Malaysia play a variety of socioeconomic roles such as poverty alleviation. To perform this role, these institutions face a major task in identifying the poverty group. Most of these institutions measure and operationalize poverty from the monetary perspective using variables such as income, expenditure or consumption. In practice, most Islamic institutions in Malaysia use the monetary approach in measuring poverty through the conventional Poverty Line Income (PLI) method. From an Islamic perspective, scholars outline the self-sufficiency for an individual as the availability of basic food and drinks, shelter and other basic needs as defined by the society in which he or she belongs to. This broad definition gives room to researchers to examine and deliberate various components of basic needs of an individual or household to attain certain standard of living. Islam outlines the self-sufficiency for an individual as the availability of basic food, drinks, shelter and other basic needs as defined by the society in which he or she belongs to (Yusuf Qardawi, 1980). In addition, Al Sabai explains that the minimum living standard is inclusive of having family, housing and transportation (Monzer Kahf, 1982). Failure to attain this stipulated needs qualifies individuals to be poor. Poverty is not only complex and multi-dimensional in nature, it goes beyond the notion of income and encompasses social, economic and political derivations (Shirazi, 2006). The objective of the paper is to present a non-monetary poverty measurement from an Islamic perspective. The proposed Islamic Poverty Indicator (IPI) consists of maqasid-al sharia (objective of the religion) elements, namely religion, knowledge, physical-self, offspring and wealth. The IPI, calculated using the weighted index method is expected to exemplify poverty from a multidimensional perspective. In addition, a comparison would be made with the existing PLI method. This microdata study would highlight the similarities and differences of both the methods. This paper is organized as follows. The next section outlines the literature review whereas the methodology undertaken in this study is deliberated in section III. Section IV present the findings of the study. Finally, the conclusion of the study is highlighted in section V. 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW In the past, Islamic institutions in Malaysia use the concept of the conventional Poverty Line Income (PLI) to measure poverty. The PLI takes into account the minimum requirements of household for two major components, namely food and non-food items (UNDP, 2007) as shown by Table 1. Food items are based on Recommended Daily Allowances (RDA), calculated by the Technical Group on Food (TGF) comprising of experts from the ministry of health and researchers selected by EPU. Non-food items are based on the World Bank s Living Standard Measurement Study introduced by Ravallion (1998). Thus, the poverty measurement employed is based on the necessities needed by the household to fulfill the basic needs in term of food and non-food requirements to ensure each household lead an active, healthy and proactive life (UNDP, 2007). Table 1: Determination of PLI 2
Items FOOD ITEMS 1. Based on Recommended Daily Allowances (RDA) by Technical Working Group on Food. 2. Necessity of household based on demographic factors such as age, gender and Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR). NON-FOOD ITEMS 1. Based on World Bank s Living Standard Measurement 2. Based on lowest 20% group of Household Expenditure Survey 2004/05 3. Consideration of prices at different states and stratum 4. Categories of goods: a. clothing and footwear b. rent, energy c. utensils d. transportation and communication e. other goods and services Source: UNDP Malaysia (2007) However researchers have argued that the current monetary approach is unable to reflect the multidimensional nature of poverty, which has developed due to the rapid development of the economy. Due to these reasons, policy makers and researchers in developed nations have opted for other approaches such as capability and social exclusion approaches which are multidimensional in nature that includes non-monetary indicators as mentioned by researchers such as Sen (1977, 1987, 1992; Nasbaum (1997, 2003); Laderchi (2000, 2003); Waggle (2005, 2007,2008); Alkire (2002, 2007, 2010) and Ravallion (1998, 2012). Nolan and Whelan (2010, 2012) highlighted that non-monetary indicators together with monetary data would be able to improve the measurement and understanding of poverty especially in rich countries. In Malaysia, Mohd Fauzi (2007, 2009) focused his study on Malaysian natives (orang asli). He developed Human Poverty Index (HPIOA) from the perspective of Malaysian natives to study the affect of marginalization or social exclusion on the quality of life amongst the natives in the state of Perak. Poverty was proxied by the multidimensional natured index taking into account different dimensions such as education level, healthcare, quality of dwelling etc. Specific dimensions that contributed to the high poverty incidence of natives such as social and economic exclusion such as education facilities, healthcare and infrastructure were highlighted. The UNDP developed the Human Poverty Index (HPI) and Human Development Index (HDI) through the studies by Sen and recently introduced the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) developed by Alkire and Santos (2010). The HPI measured poverty from three dimensions namely, the mortality rate (short life), knowledge and the overall standard of living (access to private and public resources). The mortality rate was proxied by the percentage of people expected to 3
die before the age of 40 (60 for highly developed nations). Meanwhile, knowledge was represented by the percentage of adults in the country to be literate. The combination of access to health services, access to safe water and the percentage of malnourished of children under five represented the overall standard of living. One major advantage of the HPI is that it facilitates authorities to determine policies according to priorities as shown by the dimensions. On the other hand, MPI has three dimensions, namely health, education and standard of living using ten indicator. It is obvious that MPI has been extended from the HPI with the addition of new variables although the dimensions are quite similar. The main advantage of the MPI is that the MPI consists of the percentage of poor (head count ratio) and the proportion of weighted indicators in which the average multidimensional poor person giving depth and robustness to the analysis and interpretation of findings. Islamic institutions in the past used commonly used the conventional PLI as non- Islamic organizations. Various studies have been conducted using the PLI to study the ability of Islamic aids called zakat to reduce poverty such as Ismail Salleh and Rogayah Ngah (1980) and Zulkarnain Yusoff (2008). However, lately Islamic organization have adopted the had al kifayah method which is used to determine the level of necessity needed by a household to sustain daily needs whereas PLI is a conventional method defined as the minimum income needed to sustain daily life. However, the had al kifayah is a monetary based approach similar to PLI, calculated based on various variables such as number of members in a household, age group of members etc. Patmawati (2008, 2009) found out that zakat was able to reduce gap in income distribution in Selangor, the most populated state in Malaysia. 3.0 METHODOLOGY 3.1 Conceptual Framework MONETARY INDICATORS Indicators such as income and ownership of wealth NON-MONETARY INDICATORS Indicators such as knowledge, health POVERTY MEASUREMENT Islamic Poverty Indicator (IPI) Poverty line Income (PLI) Figure 1: Research Framework The study utilizes both the monetary and non-monetary poverty measurement as shown by Figure 1. The monetary poverty measurement adopted in this study is based on the poverty gap approach using the PLI method with z as poverty gap, z 4
as adequacy of income, y as household income and k as the poverty line income or necessities of the household, explained by (1). The PLI basically is calculated by comparing the income and the basic needs outlined by the poverty line. z {1 ( y / k)}*100% or z' ( y / k) *100% -------- (1) The non-monetary poverty measurement, the Islamic Poverty Indicator (IPI) would be formulated in accordance to maqasid al-shariah principles, incorporating the methods by Alkire and Santos (2010). The formula for IPI is as below: IP1w = ( W1PS + W2WE +W3OS+W4KN + W5RE ) X 100% ------- (2) where PS- physical self, WE-wealth, OS-offspring, KN-knowledge, RE-religosity and W1, W2, W5 - weightage The dimensions in the IPI would be based on human needs (maqasid al-shariah) principles according to Islam as mentioned by JAWHAR (2007), Islamic Relief Worldwide (2008) and Rosbi and Sanep (2010). The variables in the study are derived through expert review as shown by Table 2. Twelve indicators from five dimensions were identified. Firstly, religiosity is considered as an important dimension of human needs. It is inclusive of religious knowledge, religious obligation, contribution and mosque activities. Secondly, physical self are physical needs in daily life such as healthcare and quality of dwelling or living place. Thirdly, knowledge or mind development is essential in developing the intellectual level and skills of individuals. It is inclusive of education level and skills. Fourthly, family or offspring are an important element of human needs. Finally, wealth accumulation such as savings or investments and ability to generate income or revenue from economic activities complete the formulation of the IPI. The main difference between the proposed IPI and the MPI developed by Alkire is the weightage in IPI is not equal in accordance to the maqasid al shariah principles as suggested by Shatibi (Hashim Kamali, 2009). This is because according to Shatibi, human needs are in a hierarchy as follows: religion, physical, wealth, knowledge and offspring. However, today scholars have argued the relevance of this hierarchy. In the present study expert opinion was chosen to determine whether the hierarchy of the dimensions in the Malaysian settings at the present time is similar to Shatibi s ideas. Although expert opinion could lead to biasness, this problem was reduced by choosing a panel of expert with vast experience in the field of Islamic economics and the method of face to face employed. In addition, the selected experts have various background such as Islamic economics, Islamic studies, development economics, Islamic development etc. Then, as each dimension is representated by a number of indicators as shown in Table 2 with the assumption that all indicators in a particular dimension are equally weighted. 5
The non-monetary measurement, IPI is shown by the following equation, with the weightage of each dimension derived from the rankings determined by expert review: IPI =(0.252PS + 0.129WE +0.138OS+0.186KN + 0.295RE) X 100% ------- (3) However, it is obvious that each dimension is represented by numerous indicators where physical self is represented by dwelling condition and health, wealth by employment type, house ownership and savings or investment, offspring by number of children and children attend schooling, knowledge by education levels and skills while religiosity by religious knowledge, religious obligations, contribution and mosque activities. Thus, the weightage of each indicator is shown by Table 2. Variables Table 2: Indicators and Weightage Relative Weight (%) Deprived if.. Physical Self Dwelling 12.6 Dwelling is deteriorating Health & not disabled Wealth 12.6 Any household member with serious disease and disabled Employment type 4.3 Household head without permanent job House ownership 4.3 Household own house (land) Savings & investment 4.3 Household head or members without savings and investment Offspring No of children 6.9 Household without children Attend schooling 6.9 Any children did not attend school Knowledge Education level 9.3 Household head did not attend secondary school Skills 9.3 Household head without any skills Religiosity Religious knowledge 7.4 Household head has basic religious knowledge Religious obligations 7.4 Performing of religious obligation Contribution 7.4 Contribution to close family members Mosque activities 7.4 Attendance at mosque programmes The relative weightage is calculated by dividing the weightage determined for each of the dimensions by the experts in equation 2 with the number of indicators in each dimension. Then, the cutoff point or the threshold is determined. In the study, the cutoff or threshold is decided based on k (total weightage of indicators) = 40% 6
where the household must be deprived by at least two dimensions or six indicators to be categorized as poor. That means, if the household is deprived of all the indicators in two variables with the biggest weightage, namely physical self and religiosity, then the household is poor because, Total weightage of indicators (TWI) = 12.6+12.6+7.4+7.4+7.4+7.4 =54.8> 40 Or a household is deprived of two indicators with a smaller weightage, namely offspring and knowledge, then the household is not poor: TWI = 6.9+6.9+9.3+9.3= 32.4 <40 Or if a household is deprived of three variables, namely physical self, wealth and offspring, then the household is categorized poor: TWI = 12.6+12.6+4.3+4.3+4.3+6.9+6.9= 50.9 > 40 Or a household is deprived in the indicators of all three dimensions that have a smaller weightage, namely, offspring, wealth and knowledge, then the household is poor: TWI = +4.3+4.3+4.3+6.9+6.9+9.3+9.3=45.3>40 In the Islamic definition, poverty is defined as a household unable to sustain daily requirements, while destitute is defined as a household able to fulfill even half of daily requirement. Thus, in the study, it would be difficult to define destitute as it is not an easy task to quantify 50% of daily requirement from a non-monetary perspective. However, to show destitute, the study proposes k more than 70% or deprivation of at least three dimensions or at least 8 indicators. For example, a household is deprived in the indicators of all three dimensions with the highest weightage, namely, physical self, religiosity and knowledge, then it is categorized as destitute because, TWI = 12.6+12.6+7.4+7.4+7.4+7.4 +9.3+9.3=73.4> 70 (destitute) 3.2 Data Collection This quantitative research study would employe data derived from a random survey of households in Selangor, the most populated state in Malaysia. The population in the study are poor and destitute households. The data would comprise on a variety of household well-being issues gathered through interviews, using structured questionnaire with head of household or other knowledgeable members. It delves on households economic, social and demographic data using simple random sampling technique. A representative sample was selected using proportionate stratified random sampling technique with the household heads as the respondents. 258 respondents were selected from the sampling unit. 7
A close-ended questionnaire was used as a research instrument to aid five enumerators employed to collect data from the respondents identified for this study. The questionnaire was developed using expert review where 14 experts participated in face-to-face interviews sessions. Respondents were asked to provide personal information such as their gender, age and educational attainment, job status and household size. Specific questions pertaining to social and economic indicators such as income, type of employment and non-income wealth were obtained. The data of the study were run through Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS). Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis were performed to analyse the data. 4.0 EMPIRICAL RESULTS 4.1 Demographic Background Table 3: Demographic Background Table 3: Demographic Background Item Frequency % Gender Male 110 42.60 Female 148 57.40 Age < 45 years 76 29.50 45-60 years 120 46.50 >60years 62 24.00 Marital Status Married 146 56.60 Single 112 43.40 Household Size 1-2 34 13.20 3-4 79 30.60 5-6 79 30.60 >6 66 25.60 Education Attainment Primary 113 43.80 Lower Secondary 42 16.30 Upper secondary 48 18.60 Higher Learning 9 3.5 No formal education 46 17.80 4.2 Poverty Measurement This section would discuss both the monetary and non-monetary poverty measurement utilized in this study, namely PLI and IPI respectively. Table 4 8
depicts the adequacy level of household needs from the PLI perspective. If the adequacy of household is less than 50%, it means that the income obtained by the household is not able to sustain even 50% of the household needs, thus qualifying itself to be categorized as destitute or hard-core poor. On the other hand, if the adequacy is between 50% and 100%, than the household is categorized as poor as it is unable to fully fulfill the needs of the household. In the present study, majority of respondents or 86.8% reported their adequacy at more than 100% based on the PLI method, 12.8% with more than 50% of adequacy while 0.4% with adequacy less than 50%. Thus, the majority of the respondents are not poor and only about 13% poor and less than 1% destitute. Range of Adequacy (%) Table 4: Adequacy based on PLI Frequency Percentage (%) <50 1 0.4 50-99 33 12.8 100 224 86.8 The non-monetary measurement, IPI was computed using the five maqasid dimensions with a total of 12 indicators. The deprivation of in each of the indicators are presented by Table 5 which shows that the households in the study are deprived in most of the dimensions except for knowledge and offspring. especially physical self and wealth. For physical self, both dwelling condition and health show deprivation of 70%. In term of wealth, more than 60% of the households are deprived in all the three indicators, namely steady job, do not own their homes and have savings or investment. Both indicators in offspring show deprivation of less than 5% whereas both indicators in knowledge show indicators of less than 40%. In terms of religiosity, only monetary contribution and religious contribution show obvious deprivation of more than 50%. The score of IPI calculated in the study is presented by Table 6. The majority of the respondents or 60.9% scored the IPI of 40.1% - 70% describing the status of poor while 28.7% respondents with the score of less than 40%, meaning not poor and 10.5% respondents scored more than 70%. This results shows a contrast of poverty measurement using the monetary measurement, PLI which reported that more than 86% of respondents in the present study is not poor. A comparison of these two measurement is further explained by Table 7 which shows that there are a total of 23 or 8.9% respondents who are poor and destitute according to both PLI and IPI. 9
Table 5: Deprivations of Indicators Item Frequency % Physical Self Dwelling condition 192 78.4 Health 182 70.5 Wealth Employment 167 64.7 Dwelling ownership 158 61.2 Savings or investment 196 76.0 Offspring Having children 9 3.5 Children without school education 11 4.3 Knowledge Education attainment 99 38.4 Skill acquired 81 31.4 Religiosity Knowledge 116 45.0 Observation of obligations 14 5.4 Monetary contribution 196 76.0 Commitments 133 51.6 Table 6: IPI score among respondents IPI (%) Frequency Percentage (%) 0-40.0 74 28.7 40.1-70.0 157 60.9 >70 27 10.5 Table 7: Cross Tabulation of IPI and PGK IPI (%) PGK Sufficiency (%) <50 50-99 >100 0-40.0 0 11 63 40.1-70.0 >70.0 1 0 17 5 139 22 10
From the discussion above, it is obvious that the PLI and IPI yield different results. The PLI method identified only 34 or 13.2% of respondents as poor and destitute as compared to 168 or 71.4% according to the IPI method. As the IPI is multidimensional in nature as it takes into account various dimensions, thus it is logical that the IPI has a bigger group of poor. Compared to the PLI that only has monetary dimensions as the sole indicator, IPI have five different dimensions, which would have a bigger range of deprivations as explained earlier with a total of 12 indicators. Hence, there are only as small group of poor and destitute from both the methods. 5.0 CONCLUSION The study presented both the monetary PLI and the non-monetary IPI method. The identification of the poverty group from both the method showed contrast result. The IPI proposed in the study is an initial attempt using maqasid al-shariah principles in developing a non-monetary multidimensional poverty measurement. For Islamic institutions, the need for a holistic poverty measurements are irrefutable. It is vital for Islamic institutions to device appropriate poverty measurement that are holistic in nature to identify the targeted poverty group. This is essential to maintain trust between the society and these institutions as mentioned by Abdul Quddus Suhaib (2009) who stresses that an ideal Islamic institutions such as zakat organizations should be able to distribute of zakat funds to appropriate recipients especially the poverty groups. Zakat is one of the five basic pillars in Islam. It is an obligation for Muslims to give a specific amount of their wealth (with certain conditions and requirements) to beneficiaries called al-mustahiqqin (asnaf) with the main objective of the achievement of socioeconomic justice. Islamic institutions such as zakat organizations are trusted bodies that manage zakat in Muslim countries. In Malaysia, such zakat institutions are State Islamic Religious Councils (SIRCs). Among the core activities of zakat organizations are to collect compulsory donations from eligible Muslims and distribute them to the rightful beneficiaries. Shirazi (1996 & 2006) concurs that the main role of Islamic institutions are to facilitate the Muslims to pay zakat and distribute efficiently to the appropriate recipient. In other words, Islamic organization must exemplify efficiency to the Muslim society in various ways such as the ability to reduce the poverty incidence of Muslims and efficient services to the potential recipients etc. The present paper proposes a multidimensional perspective of performance measurement in the context of zakat institutions utilizing index as a tool of measurement. Thus, the introduction of an Islamic poverty indicator or IPI incorporating the various dimensions as suggested maqasid al-shariah principles would have an impact on Islamic institutions as it gives a new perspective of measuring poverty from a micro perspective. Using methods such as index, the IPI is envisaged to reflect the multi-dimensional phenomenon of poverty in a more holistic way. Thus, it is strongly recommended that a comprehensive study to formulate the IPI to be carried out throughout the zakat organizations in Malaysia. 11
This would enhance the poverty measurement from an Islamic perspective as it comprises of non-monetary dimensions that would complement the existing monetary poverty measurements. REFERENCES Abdul Quddus Suhaib. 2009. Contribution of Zakat In The Social Development Of Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Social Science. Vol. 29 No.2 Alkire, S. (2002). Valuing Freedoms. Sen s Capability Approach and Poverty Reduction. Oxford University Press. Alkire, S. & Santos, E. M. (2010). Acute Multidimensional Poverty: A New Index for Developing Countries. OPHI Working Paper No. 38. Oxford University Press. Alkire, S. and Foster, J. (2007). Counting and Multidimensional Poverty. Journal of Public Economics. Volume 95 Issues 7-8 August 11. Ismail Salleh and Rogayah Ngah (1980). Distibution of the Zakat Burden on Padi Producers in Malaysia In M. Raquibuiz Zaman (ed.). Some Aspects of the Economics of Zakat, New York: American Trust Publication. JAWHAR.(2007). Manual Pengurusan Zakat. Jabatan Perdana Menteri Malaysia. Laderchi, C. R. (2000). The monetary approach to poverty: a survey of concept and methods. QEH Paper Series 58 Laderchi, C,R, Ruhi Saith and Steward, F. (2003).Does it matter that we don t agree on the definition of poverty. QEH Paper Series 17. Mohammad Hashim Kamali (2009). Maqasid Made Simple. The International Institute of Islamic Institute (IIIT). Mohd. Fauzi Harun and Ahmad Fauzee Abdullah. (2007). Kemiskinan Mengikut Teori Konvensional dan Perspektif Islam. UPENA. Mohd. Fauzi Harun and Nur Aini Idris. (2009). Pembangunan Masyarakat Orang Asli Dilema Kemiskinan dan Terpinggir. UPENA. Monzer, K. (1982). Taxaion in an islamic economy in Ziauddin Ahmad et.al. Fiscal policy and resource allocation in Islam. Jeddah. International Centre for Research in Islamic Economics. King Abdul Aziz University. Nolan, B. and Whelan, C.T. (2010). Using non-monetary deprivation indicators to analyse poverty and social exclusions. Lesson from Europe? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management Spring. Nolan, B. and Whelan, C.T. (2012). Using non-monetary deprivation indicators to Analyze European Poverty and Social Exclusion in Counting the poor: New Thinking about European Poverty Measures and Lessons for United States. Besharov, J.D.and Couch, A.K. (ed.). Oxford University Press. Nussbaum, M. (1997). Capabilities and Human Rights. Fordham Law Review Nussbaum, M. (2003) Capabilities as Fundamental Entitlements. Sen and Social Justice. Feminist Economics. 9 (2-3). 33-59. Patmawati Ibrahim (2008). Pembangunan Ekonomi Melalui Zakat: Tinjauan Empirikal. Syariah Jurnal Vol 16 No2. Patmawati Ibrahim (2009). Tahap Ekonomi Ummah In Abd Halim Mohd Noor et al (ed.). Pengintegrasian Zakat dan Cukai di Malaysia. UPENA. Shah Alam. 12
Peerzade, Syed Afdzal (1997). The Definition and Measurement of Poverty: An Integrated Islamic Approach. The Pakistan Development Review. Islamabad. Ravallion, M. (1998). Poverty lines in theory and practice. LMS Working Paper, 133.The World Bank. Ravallion, M. (2012). Poor or Just Feeling Poor.On Using Subjective Data in Measuring poor. Policy Research Working Paper 5968. The World Bank. Rosbi A. Rahman and Sanep Ahmad. (2010). Pengukuran keberkesanan Agiham Zakat: Perspektif maqasid al-syariah. Proceedings of Seventh International Conference The Tawhidi Epistemologi: Zakat and Waqf fund. 6th -7 th January. Institut Islam Hadhari, UKM Bangi, Malaysia. Sen, A.K. (1977). Development as Freedom (DAF). Oxford. Oxford University Press. Sen, A.K. (1987). The standard of living: lecture ii, lives and capabilities in G. Hawthorn (ed.) The Standard of Living, The Tanner Lectures (clare Hall), Cambridge. Sen, A. K. (1992). Inequality Reaxamined. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Shirazi, Nasim Shah. (1996). Targeting, Coverage and Contribution of Zakat to Households Income: A Case of Pakistan. Journal of Economic Cooperation among Muslim Countries. 17 3-4 (1996). 165-186. Shirazi, N.S. (2006). Providing for the resource shortfall for poverty elimination through the instrument of zakat in low income muslim countries. IIUM Journal of Economic and Management 14 no 1 (2006). United Nations Developing Programme (UNDP), Malaysia. (2007). Malaysia: Measuring and Monitoring Poverty and Equality. Wagle, U. (2005). Multidimensional Poverty Measurement with economic wellbeing, capability and social inclusion: A Case from Katmandu, Nepal. Journal of Human Development, Vol. no.6, November 2005. Wagle, U. (2007). Poverty in Katmandu: What do subjective and objective economic welfare concepts suggest? Journal of Economic Inequality Vol 5. No.1. Waggle, U. (2008). Mutidimensional Poverty: An alternative measurement approach for the United States?. Social Science Research Volume 37, Issue 2. Yusuf Al-Qardawi (1973). Hukum Zakat. Translated from Arabic by Salman Harun, Didin Hafidhudin and Hishamuddin. Jakarta: P.T. Pustaka Litera Antarnusa. Sixth ed. 2002. Zulkarnain Yusoff et al. (2008). Pengurusan zakat dan peranannya dalam menangani kemiskinan di Kelantan in Didin Hafidhudin (ed.). The Power of Zakat: Studi Perbandingan Pengelolaan Zakat Asia Tenggara.UIN Malang Press. 13
14