Another important observation is that SEs at stratum-level inflation rates are quite low. Despite extremely limited observations at the stratum level, SEs of inflation rates are all below 5 percentage points. SEs of rural and urban average inflation rates are just 1.6 percent and 2.3 percent, respectively.

As a result, stratum-specific poverty lines were also quite accurately estimated using subsample data from the 2005 HIES. The fourth column of table 9 shows poverty lines estimated using the full 2000 and 2005 HIES samples, while the fifth column shows those estimated using the full sample of the 2000 HIES and a subsample from the 2010 HIES. Most exhibit less than a 1 percent difference between the fourth and fifth columns. Like above, Rajshahi (SMA) and Sylhet (Municipality) show relatively large differences, but still they are less than 10 percent. If all poverty lines are aggregated for rural and urban areas, the differences become less than 1 percent. Furthermore, the SEs of poverty lines based on the subsamples of 2005 are also, in general, small. All of these observations suggest that poverty lines and inflation rates estimated from the subsamples of 2005 are robust and reliable.

|**Table 10: Estimated Pover**<br>Updating povertylines<br>Estimation method|**ty Rates**<br>Using<br>Subsa<br>Imput|subsam<br>dat<br>mple<br>ation<sup>a</sup>|ples of<br>a<br>Subs<br>Dir|2005<br>ample<br>ect|Subs<br>Impu|Usingth<br>ample<br>tation<sup>a</sup>|e full sam<br>Subsa<br>Dir|ple of 2<br>mple<br>ect|005 dat<br>Full S<br>Di<br>Estim|a<br>ample<br>rect<br>ation|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|National, 640 households|38.0|(2.5)|38.8|(2.7)|38.9|(2.5)|39.8|(2.7)|40.0|(1.1)|
|Rural, 410 households|41.2|(3.1)|42.9|(3.4)|42.1|(3.1)|43.9|(3.6)|43.8|(1.3)|
|Urban, 230 households|28.3|(3.6)|26.4|(4.2)|29.2|(3.6)|27.4|(4.2)|28.4|(1.9)|
|National, 320 households|38.2|(3.4)|39.6|(4.5)|39.2|(3.4)|40.9|(4.5)|40.0|(1.1)|
|Rural, 200 households|41.0|(4.3)|42.8|(5.5)|41.9|(4.3)|44.1|(5.5)|43.8|(1.3)|
|Urban, 120 households|29.7|(5.3)|29.7|(6.8)|31.0|(5.3)|31.2|(7.3)|28.4|(1.9)|

_Source:_ Authors’ calculations using 2000 and 2005 HIES data. a. A simplified method, which is described in detail in section II, is used.

Finally, we examined whether updating poverty lines using a subsample of the 2005 HIES data has a large impact on poverty estimates derived from the Subsample Imputation. To determine this impact, we compared poverty estimates from poverty lines and inflation rates estimated from subsamples of 2005 HIES data with those estimated from the full sample of 2005 HIES data.

In the Subsample Imputation described in section III, inflation rates and poverty lines are estimated using the full 2000 and 2005 HIES samples with only the consumption models developed using a subsample from the 2005 HIES. Here inflation rates, poverty lines, and consumption models are all estimated using a subsample from the 2005 HIES. To reduce the computational burden of this analysis, we adopted the simplified projection model (described in detail in section II) rather than a full-fledged ELL method when creating consumption models. Also, to see the effect of sample size, we conducted this analysis with subsamples of 320 and 640 households.

Table 10 summarizes estimated poverty rates. The first column shows poverty estimates from Subsample Imputation when a subsample of 2005 HIES data is used to estimate poverty lines and inflation rates, 18