Something else to be seen through the looking glass? (Estimated 5 minute read)

If you were to ask someone on the street how they would define poverty, you would likely hear the concept defined in different terms, yet more or less the same. In this hypothetical narrative, most people might say something along the following lines:

Being in poverty means you do not have enough money to meet very basic needs, such as having enough food or perhaps access to health services.

Granted this is a condensed narrative, it captures the bare essence of how people might define poverty. Beyond the short definition there would be people who could extensively elaborate on the issue and separate absolute and relative poverty. However, the point of the exercise is simply to imagine how people define the term in this concise manner.

Now try and envision a world full of academics and researchers, international organizations and non-governmental organizations, all working in the same field, yet with their own dissimilar definitions. Then of course, we cannot forget about the fieldworkerswho are physically present and involved in campaigns against poverty. Surely each group or individual is driven by the way they see the world and perceive existing poverty. Therefore, the way they approach the concept is also driven by their own understanding and experiences and how it should best be managed.

Having imagined how average people and researchers define poverty, it is time to move forward and consider how poverty is measured. Be forewarned, as this singular post will not do justice to the numerous approaches which are widely utilized by different groups!

You might already be familiar with the “dollar-a-day” proclamations in the news or advertisements. To illustrate, the World Bank has worked extensively on the money-metric endeavor for decades now, leading to the current rate of $1.90 a day based on a purchasing power parity (World Bank, 2021). If you’re below this threshold, you are considered to be in absolute poverty. The WB adjusts this rating every few years and state’s strive to examine their own relative indicator around monetary measurements. Imagine then that a state has managed to lift enough citizens above this threshold, much as was stated with the Millennium Development Goal by 2015 (Qui, 2016). Suddenly, millions of people across the globe are out of poverty because they’re above the threshold. The obvious problems with this type of measurement have been drawing more attention for years (Hickel, 2019). First, the measurements began in the 1980s and account for most of the downward trend from that point forward. This fails to account for longer periods before this time when subsistence economies, for example, were still relatively more commonplace. Second, as you may have thought to yourself, the standard is already quite low. So what if absolute poverty was measured at $3 or $5 a day? That would suddenly catapult millions back into poverty on a technicality, while still showing relatively little about their actual living conditions.

Considering this arbitrary threshold is often contested, it is perhaps no wonder others have sought to introduce different measures of poverty that extend beyond the notion of one’s purchasing power. On the other end of the measurement spectrum, others have worked on a concept of capabilities and capability deprivation (Robeyns & Fibieger Byskov, 2020). At least this is considered as an extension of being impoverished in the sense that one lacks social opportunities, a life of dignity, and political freedoms, alongside standard economic elements. Furthermore, there are scholars that have shifted the debate to a more participatory approach whereby practitioners listen to the voices of the poor within their communities (Kapoor, 2002). In comparison, this is perhaps more straightforward than the capabilities literature in the sense that “participation” is relatively clearer than what “capabilities” in terms of poverty entails. Beyond these two concepts, another one of the most popular measurements are the multidimensional approaches (OPHI, 2021). The multidimensional approaches generally include at least three dimensions of poverty: health, education, and living standards. Under the three dimensions are also relevant indicators, such as nutrition, child mortality rates, levels of schooling, and access to sanitation, water, and electricity. This is perhaps one of the most widely utilized tools since it appears to capture different layers of poverty that could be experienced, though the approach also has its fair share of critics.

It should be stated that the purpose here is not to show that there is necessarily one method which is better than the other but that the very conceptualization of poverty leads to the next step: how to measure it or at least critically consider how it is being measured (cf. Fischer, 2018). This is at least one area where the academics, researchers, and fieldworkers might find some mutual agreement. At least discussing how existing measures could continuously be improved upon is a step forward. After all, the familiar saying along the lines that you cannot manage what cannot be measured, speaks volumes. If we’re to overcome an issue, we first need to address what we define as the issue and from there take the steps to alleviate it.

In the subsequent posts on poverty, the main focus will be to look at national policy areas and how certain state’s operationalize their own campaigns against poverty.

***Please note: some of the cited material is not from the original authors, such as Amartya Sen or Robert Chambers. Instead, they’re taken from introductory materials or other authors reviewing their concepts. This is not meant to be indicative of my professional views on these approaches.