Measuring Poverty: the Bare Necessities
This term, MSc students at the Department have the opportunity to choose two options courses on specific areas of social policy. This article is adapted from a presentation given by Tania Loke, MSc student in Comparative Social Policy, to her class on Poverty in Comparative Context, on the Social Perceived Necessities approach to measuring poverty.
A typology of relative-poverty concepts?
We can look at welfare in two different ways (Ringen 1988). Indirect concepts define welfare in terms of resources, such as disposable income, whereas direct concepts define welfare in terms of intrinsic goods, such as consumption or quality of life.
We can also take different approaches to measuring poverty, depending on who decides what necessities are (Veit-Wilson 1987). In the prescriptive class of definitions, whatever they may be called, experts lay down what are to be the minimum standards of food, clothing, housing, income, and so on. Consensual approaches, in contrast, aim to identify a minimum acceptable way of life not by reference to the views of "experts," nor by reference to observed patterns of expenditure or observed living standards, but by reference to the views of society as a whole (Mack & Lansley 1985).
We can illustrate how these different concepts interact in the table below:
Identifying poverty using the socially perceived necessities measure
The socially-perceived necessities measure of poverty is created using three steps (adapted from McKay 2004: 205; Lister 2004: 46):
Ask a large group of people which of a number of items they believe to be essential, which everyone should be able to afford (listed in the table below).
Ask a large sample which of these items they have, which they lack because they do not want them, and which they lack because they cannot afford them.
Establish a poverty line based on:
A direct measure: the income levels at which people risk not being able to afford them; and/or
An indirect measure: the number of items at which people are especially likely to suffer in a severe way from other welfare problems measured independently of this measure (in particular poor health and financial stress) and to see themselves as poor (Mack & Lansley 2012: 265).
We then define deprivation poverty as the lack of three (two) or more necessities for adults (children), where necessities are considered as such by at least half of the sample population (Mack & Lansley 2012).
To illustrate the subjectivity of the Socially Perceived Necessities Approach, a group of students implemented these steps in one of their weekly seminars on Poverty in Comparative Context. “N” here denotes the number of people (out of 11) in our tutorial group who considered the item or activity necessary; PCC ’18 denotes the corresponding percentage; and PSE ’12 is the same obtained in the Poverty and Social Exclusion (PSE) UK Omnibus Survey 2012.
Here are a number of different items or activities which relate to our standard of living. I would like you to indicate the living standards you feel all adults should have in Britain today by ticking in column N.
Tick for items or activities which you think are necessary—which all adults should be able to afford and which they should not have to do without. Do not tick for items or activities which may be desirable but are not necessary.
Comparing our class sample (PCC '18) and the UK-wide survey (PSE '12), two differences stand out: First, our class of postgraduate students—plus our convenor—voted overwhelmingly in favour of classifying "Internet connection at home" as a necessity (91%), while PSE '12 results categorise the same as desirable, but not necessary (40%). This may reflect the fact that all our class members have this item and couldn't do without it. Second, the TV is a contentious item in the PSE '12 survey, marginally being classed as a necessity at 51%. In contrast, 82% of our class reckoned adults should be able to do without a TV—perhaps reflecting a normative stance on the item, or the possibility that most of our class do not possess or use a TV regularly.
Issues to Consider
1. Is there a valid consensus on necessities?
Walker (1987) criticised attempts to operationalise the consensual approach using survey techniques, as people are typically asked for immediate responses to tightly worded questions about complex and sensitive issues to which few of them will previously have given much thought. Fahmy, Sutton, & Pemberton (2015) agreed that it is unclear whether the survey methodology can yield informed deliberations on the complex question of “what are the necessities of life.”
Another concern is that we are unable to say anything about the criteria which people employ in judging whether or not items are “necessary” nor, indeed, whether respondents felt equally strongly about each of the items assessed (Mack & Lansley 1985). Furthermore, people’s responses may often be unstable in the light of information about living standards or hearing others’ views.
McKay (2004) reanalysed 1999 UK data and found significant variation in different people’s ideas of what is necessary. The extent of agreement between people about what is a “necessity” was relatively weak, and the number of items described as “necessities” by each respondent varied quite considerably across the sample. At a group level, there were significant social-class- and age-based differences in what was considered a necessity.
In South Africa, however, analysis of the South African Social Attitudes Survey 2006 (Wright 2013) found a high level of agreement between major social cleavages—including population group, sex, income, and area—in terms of the necessities.
2. Does “inability to afford” indicate preference rather than poverty?
Piachaud (1987) argued that the social consensus approach fails to resolve the problem when the practices of the poor do not correspond with the priorities prescribed by the majority. Likewise, McKay (2004) suggested that lacking particular items may be due to preference rather than poverty, as virtually everyone who said they were unable to afford a “necessity” had one or more “non-necessities.” Halleröd (2006: 388) argued that adaptation of preferences would most likely lead to underestimation of objective relative deprivation. In contrast, Wright (2013: 158) found that people in South Africa predominantly explained their lack of items in terms of enforced lack rather than choice.
The solution: triangulation
Whatever measure we use to monitor poverty will necessarily involve compromise. One possible solution is proposed by Lister (2004: 50): “Triangulation – the combination of a range of methods – is needed to improve the accuracy of the operationalisation of definitions of poverty […] Triangulation with qualitative, including participatory, methods, will help to achieve a deeper, multidimensional and multi-perspective picture, which goes beyond measurement’”.
Our Poverty in Comparative Context class will continue learning about ways to conceptualise, define and measure poverty over the next few weeks; with the hope of having a more comprehensive, even triangulated, understanding of poverty.
References
Bradshaw, J. & Finch, N. (2003) ‘Overlaps in dimensions of poverty’, Journal of Social Policy 32(4): 513-525.
Dermott, E. et al. (2011) Omnibus Survey 2012: Necessities of Life Module [Online], Economic & Social Research Council. Available from: http://www.poverty.ac.uk/sites/default/files/attachments/PSE%20UK%20Attitudes%20to%20Necessities%20and%20services%20-Omnibus%20questionnaire%202012.pdf [Accessed 26 January 2018].
Fahmy, E., Sutton, E. & Pemberton, S. (2015) ‘Are we all agreed? Consensual methods and “necessities of life” in the UK today’, Journal of Social Policy 44(3): 591-610.
Gordon, D. (2017) PSE-UK 2012 Survey: Producing an ‘objective’ poverty line in eight easy steps [Online], Economic & Social Research Council. Available from: http://www.poverty.ac.uk/sites/default/files/attachments/Steps-to-producing-the-PSEpoverty-line_Gordon.pdf [Accessed 26 January 2018].
Halleröd, B. (2006) ‘Sour grapes: relative deprivation, adaptive preferences & the measurement of poverty’, Journal of Social Policy 5: 111-129.
Halleröd, B., Gordon, D., Larsson, D.& Ritakallio, V-M. (2006) ‘Relative deprivation: a comparative analysis of Britain, Finland & Sweden’, Journal of European Social Policy 16(4): 328-345.
Halleröd, B. & Larsson, D. (2008) ‘Poverty, welfare problems & social exclusion’, International Journal of Social Welfare 17(1): 15-25.
Lansley, S. & Mack, J. (2015) Breadline Britain: The rise of mass poverty, London: Bloomsbury.
Lister, R. (2004) Poverty, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Mack, J. & Lansley, S. (1985) Poor Britain, London: George Allen & Unwin.
McKay, S. (2004) ‘Poverty or preference: what do “consensual deprivation indicators” really measure?’, Fiscal Studies 25(2): 201-223.
Piachaud, D. (1987) ‘Problems in the definition & measurement of poverty’, Journal of Social Policy 16(2): 147-164.
Ringen, S. (1988) ‘Direct & indirect measures of poverty’, Journal of Social Policy 17(3): 351-365.
Townsend, P. (1979) Poverty in the UK, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Veit-Wilson, J. (1987) ‘Consensual approaches to poverty lines & social security’, Journal of Social Policy 16(2): 183-211.
Walker, R. (1987) ‘Consensual approaches to the definition of poverty: towards an alternative methodology’, Journal of Social Policy 16(2): 213-226.
Whelan, C.T., Layte, R. & Maître, B. (2004) ‘Understanding the mismatch between income poverty & deprivation: a dynamic comparative analysis’, European Sociological Review 20(4): 287-302.
Wright, G. & Noble, M. (2013) ‘Does widespread lack undermine the socially perceived necessities approach to defining poverty? Evidence from South Africa’, Journal of Social Policy 42(1): 147-165.
About the Author
Tania Loke is a Rhodes Scholar (Malaysia & St Cross, 2017) studying Comparative Social Policy. She completed a Bachelor of Philosophy (Honours) at the University of Western Australia, majoring in Physics and Political Science & International Relations. Before coming to Oxford, Tania worked as research officer to a Malaysian Member of Parliament, where she gained experience in public policy research and community work.