We have to make assumptions about how to treat households for which the indicator might not apply and for households with missing indicators. For example, the indicator on school attendance does not apply to households without school-aged children. When reporting on and ranking the indicator alone, we report the share only including the subset of households that have school-aged children. But when creating the multidimensional poverty indicator, we follow the World Bank’s PIP methodology, where ineligible households are assumed deprived if a sufficiently large share of households in the geographic region were deprived (e.g., World Bank 2018). Specifically, all households without schoolaged children are assumed to be deprived in provinces that have a share deprived above the national median. And in provinces with below-median deprivation, all households without school-aged children are assumed to be not deprived.<sup>19</sup><sup>_,_20</sup> However, we omit one indicator from the comparison between the 2009 HIES and the 2016-2018 DHS- the share of the population living in a household where not all schoolaged children attend school. The 2009 HIES appears to be poorly capturing school attendance and does not appear to be comparable to the DHS or other nationally representative surveys.<sup>21</sup> However, when including the indicator, the change would indicate a significant worsening (likely artificial) over the time period and would not contradict the main empirical findings demonstrating no improvement in well-being following a period of strong resource-led growth. And we continue to report the attendance indicator in the 2016-2018 MPM and summary statistics.

indicators and two of the access to basic services indicators. An example of a household that narrowly misses out on being multidimensionally poor includes a household that is deprived in one of the two education indicators and only one of the access to basic services indicators.

> 19The indicator based only on eligible households (41.8 percent) and the indicator with the above province-level assumptions (43.6 percent) are nearly identical at the national level.

> 20Additionally, a subset of the other standard MPM indicators have a handful of missing observations in both surveys. For each individual indicator, we report and rank estimates using all non-missing observations. But for the multidimensional poverty indicator, we calculate the measure for only households with no missing observations in any of the indicators. However, this last restriction drops only a handful of households in each survey (e.g., 133 households out of 16,021 were dropped in the 2016-2018 DHS).

> 21There was a substantial worsening of school attendance between attendance indicators in the 2009 HIES and the 2016-2018 DHS. However, the 2009 estimates appear to be an outlier when compared to estimates reported from the 2011 Population Census and the 2022 Socio-Demographic and Economic Survey, and little could explain such a change over the time period. And this stands in stark contrast to the very little change in any other well-being indicator presented in Section 4. Details available from the authors upone request.

11