Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:27:12.703Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Problems in the Definition and Measurement of Poverty*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

David Piachaud
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three approaches to defining poverty levels are discussed—social consensus approaches, budget standard methods, and behavioural approaches. Each addresses different questions and none, of itself, has provided—nor, it is argued, could ever provide—an objective definition of poverty. The paper then raises problems that have been largely neglected in defining poverty. First, the treatment of time and home production: the time and ability of individuals to prepare food or to wash and feed without assistance, for example, vary greatly depending on circumstances and in turn affect income needs. Choices and constraints affecting the household formations in which people live and their budgeting behaviour are also important in assessing poverty. Individual variations in behaviour need to be explicitly recognised if practical definitions of poverty levels are to be found. Finally, the paper condemns discussions of poverty that are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , April 1987 , pp. 147 - 164
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ashton, P. (1984), ‘Poverty and Its Beholders’, New Society, 18 10.Google Scholar
Atkinson, A.B. (1985), How Should We Measure Poverty? Some Conceptual Issues, ESRC Programme on Taxation, Incentives and the Distribution of Income, Discussion Paper No. 82.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, J., Mitchell, Deborah and Morgan, Jane (1987), ‘Evaluating Adequacy: The Potential of Budget Standards’, Journal of Social Policy, 16:2, 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Central Statistical Office, 07 1986, ‘The effects of taxes and benefits on household income, 1984’, Economic Trends, London.Google Scholar
Cmnd 9517 (1985), The Reform of Social Security, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Desai, M. (1986), ‘Drawing the line: on defining the poverty threshold’, in Golding, P. (ed.). Excluding the Poor, Child Poverty Action Group, London.Google Scholar
London Weekend Television (1983), Breadline Britain, London.Google Scholar
Lynes, T. (1979), ‘Costs of Children’, New Society, 15 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mack, J. and Lansley, S. (1985), Poor Britain, Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
Piachaud, D. (1979), The Cost of a Child, Child Poverty Action Group, London.Google Scholar
Piachaud, D. (1981), ‘Peter Townsend and the Holy Grail’, New Society. 10 09.Google Scholar
Sen, A.K. (1983), ‘Poor, relatively speaking’, Oxford Economic Papers, 35, 153–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, P. (1979), Poverty in the United Kingdom, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Praag, B.M.S., Hagenaars, A.J.M. and van Weeren, H. (1982), ‘Poverty in Europe’, Review of Income and Wealth, 28, 345–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veit-Wilson, J. (1987), ‘Consensual Approaches to Poverty Lines and Social Security’, Journal of Social Policy, 16:2, 183–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, A.N. (1933), Adventures of Ideas, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar