Chapter 02 The concept of poverty

2.1 Requirements of a concept of poverty

The importance of avoiding extreme poverty not only because it causes suffering to the poor
themselves, but also because it can have negative effects on the wider society. Poverty should
be understood not just in terms of absolute income levels, but in terms of how it affects
people's ability to access the goods and resources they need to live a decent life. Poverty
should be measured by people's entitlements, or their ability to access these resources, rather
than simply by their income or consumption levels. Poverty should be seen as a problem for the
whole community, not just for those who are directly affected by it. When people become so
poor that they cannot meet their basic needs, they may resort to behaviors that are harmful or
offensive to others, such as begging, stealing, or engaging in prostitution. This can create
discomfort and cost for the wider community, as they are forced to deal with the social and
economic consequences of poverty. Societies should be judged not only by their aggregate
wealth, but also by how they treat their most vulnerable members. The phrase "the reduction
of human beings into 'means'" refers to the idea that when people are treated only as a means
to an end (in this case, to achieve economic growth), their human dignity is diminished.
The first requirement for the concept of poverty, which is to identify who should be the focus of
concern. Using a "poverty line" or "consumption norms" we can define poverty is one way to
identify who is poor. Amartya Sen is discussing the question of who the concept of poverty
should be concerned with. In some discussions, the focus is not on the suffering of the poor in a
country but rather on the overall wealth of the nation. It is appropriate to consider the well-
being of all people in the nation, not just the poor. This broader concept of poverty is different
from the concept that focuses on the well-being of the poor as individuals.
A poverty headcount ratio, which simply counts the number of people living below a certain
income or consumption level, has been criticized for being too simplistic and not capturing the
multidimensional nature of poverty. It also fails to account for the depth of poverty, or how far
below the poverty line individuals or households may fall. Alternative measures of poverty
include the poverty gap, which takes into account how far below the poverty line individuals
fall, and the squared poverty gap, which puts more weight on those further below the poverty
line. Additionally, multidimensional poverty measures take into account a range of deprivations
that people may face, including in areas such as health, education, and living standards. Overall,
the choice of poverty measure depends on the purpose of the analysis and the context in which
it is being applied.
2.2 THE BIOLOGICAL APPROACH
Poverty were based on biological considerations related to survival or work efficiency. The idea
was that poverty was a condition in which people lacked the basic necessities for survival or the
ability to work and support themselves. Seebohm Rowntree's definition of poverty in terms of
the minimum necessities for physical efficiency is an example of this type of approach. Other
examples include definitions based on the number of calories needed to sustain life or the cost
of a basic basket of goods necessary for survival.

THE PROBLEMS OF MEASURING POVERTY WITH BIOLOGICAL APPROACH

Firstly, for a specific group in a specific region, nutritional requirements are difficult to define
precisely. People have been known to survive within credibly little nutrition, and there seems to
be a cumulative improvement of life expectation as the dietary limits are raised.
Secondly, the biological approach does not take into account the fact that poverty is not just
about physical deprivation, but also about social exclusion and lack of access to opportunities. A
person may have adequate food and shelter, but still be poor if they lack access to education,
healthcare, and other essential services that are necessary for full participation in society.
Thirdly, the biological approach assumes a uniformity of needs across all individuals, which is
not the case. People have different preferences and priorities, and what may be considered a
minimum requirement for one person may not be the same for another. For example, a
vegetarian may require a different set of nutrients compared to a non-vegetarian.
Fourth, the biological approach ignores non-physical aspects of poverty, such as lack of access
to education, health care, and other basic necessities. For example, a person may meet the
minimum nutritional requirements but still suffer from poverty due to lack of access to medical
care or education, which can impact their ability to earn income and improve their standard of
living in the long run.
Fifth, the biological approach assumes that poverty is an individual phenomenon, but poverty
can also be a collective or social phenomenon. Poverty can arise from social exclusion,
discrimination, or unequal distribution of resources, which cannot be addressed by a focus on
individual nutritional requirements.

Overall, while the biological approach can be useful as a starting point, it should not be the only
factor considered in defining poverty. A more comprehensive approach that takes into account
social and economic factors is needed to fully understand and address poverty. While the
biological approach may have limitations in defining poverty, it does have a basic underlying
idea that cannot be ignored. The idea that poverty is related to an individual or household's
ability to meet their basic needs for survival, such as food, shelter, and clothing, remains
important. However, this idea needs to be expanded beyond mere physical efficiency to include
social, cultural, and economic factors that influence poverty.

2.3 THE INEQUALITY APPROACH

However, this view of poverty as primarily an issue of inequality may not capture the full range
of experiences and deprivations associated with poverty. While income inequality is certainly a
factor, poverty also involves a lack of access to basic goods and services such as food, shelter,
healthcare, education, and clean water, as well as a lack of opportunities to participate fully in
society. the relationship between income inequality and poverty is not always straightforward.
For example, some societies may have low income inequality but high levels of poverty, while
others may have high income inequality but lower levels of poverty due to social safety nets or
other factors. Therefore, while income inequality is an important aspect of poverty, it should
not be seen as the sole or defining characteristic of poverty.
Inequality and poverty are related but distinct concepts. Transfers from the rich to the poor
may reduce inequality, but they may not necessarily address the problem of poverty. Similarly,
a decline in income that keeps the measure of inequality unchanged may still result in
starvation, malnutrition, and obvious hardship, which would indicate an increase in poverty. It
is important to consider multiple parameters, including malnutrition and other forms of
deprivation, when understanding poverty. Ignoring such parameters would not lead to greater
scientific accuracy but would instead result in blindness to important aspects of poverty.
Therefore, poverty cannot be subsumed under the concept of inequality, and vice versa.
2.4 THE RELATIVE DEPRIVATION
The concept of relative deprivation can be understood in different ways. One way is to think of
it as a subjective feeling of deprivation that arises from the comparison of one's own situation
with that of others. This can lead to a sense of unfairness or injustice, and can be associated
with feelings of resentment or anger towards those who are better off. Another way of
understanding relative deprivation is in terms of objective measures of inequality. This
approach looks at the distribution of resources or opportunities within a society, and identifies
those who are at the bottom of that distribution. Those who are at the bottom may be seen as
relatively deprived compared to those who are higher up the distribution, regardless of how
well off they are in absolute terms. Deprivation can be understood objectively based on a
person's access to certain resources, such as income or employment opportunities, rather than
being solely based on subjective feelings or perceptions. By using concrete conditions as the
basis for defining deprivation, it becomes possible to compare different groups of people and to
identify those who are objectively worse off in terms of access to resources. This approach to
relative deprivation is more consistent with the idea of poverty as a lack of basic necessities and
a low standard of living. The choice of 'conditions of deprivation' is not independent of 'feelings
of deprivation' because people's subjective experiences and perceptions play an important role
in shaping their material needs and desires. Moreover, the definition of poverty is not simply a
matter of identifying objective material conditions; it also involves assessing the social and
cultural norms and expectations that determine what constitutes a minimally acceptable
standard of living. Therefore, an objective diagnosis of 'conditions' requires an understanding of
the social and psychological dimensions of poverty as well.
For instance, a person living in a low-income neighborhood may compare their living conditions
with their neighbors, while someone living in a wealthier area may compare their living
conditions with the average of their community. Similarly, individuals may compare themselves
with others who have similar backgrounds, education, or occupation.
2.5 A VALUE JUDGEMENT
The view that poverty is a value judgement is indeed a common one. Poverty is often viewed as
a negative social phenomenon, one that should be eliminated or reduced. However, this view
can be challenged on several grounds. For example, some might argue that poverty is not only a
matter of subjective evaluation, but is also an objective condition that can be measured and
studied. Additionally, some might argue that poverty is not simply a matter of individual or
subjective judgment, but is also shaped by social and political structures and processes.
Regarding Orshansky's argument that poverty, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder, it is
true that there is an element of subjectivity involved in the definition and measurement of
poverty. Different people and societies may have different standards for what constitutes a
basic standard of living, and thus may define poverty differently. However, it is important to
note that poverty is not purely a matter of subjective judgment. There are certain objective
indicators of poverty, such as income level, access to basic needs like food, shelter, and
healthcare, and educational attainment, which can be used to measure poverty and compare it
across different contexts.
Furthermore, using objective criteria to measure poverty does not necessarily imply that
poverty is only an issue of material deprivation. As Amartya Sen has argued, poverty should be
understood as a multidimensional concept that includes not only material deprivation but also
lack of access to healthcare, education, political participation, and other essential capabilities.
By taking into account these broader dimensions of poverty, poverty measurement can be a
more nuanced and accurate reflection of the lived experiences of people facing deprivation and
exclusion in society.
For example, even if it is not feasible to provide everyone with a high standard of living, it does
not mean that those who lack basic necessities should not be recognized as deprived.
Furthermore, what is considered an acceptable level of subsistence can differ from society to
society, and what is considered acceptable in one society may not be acceptable in another.
Therefore, poverty measurement should not be solely based on policy recommendations, but
also on the objective assessment of what is necessary for a decent life. The reduction of poverty
cannot be solely a matter of policy, but must also be guided by an understanding of what
constitutes deprivation.
The measurement of poverty should primarily be seen as an exercise in describing the
predicament of people in terms of prevailing standards of necessities, rather than as an
exercise in making value judgments or recommending policies. While policy recommendations
and moral considerations can play a role in poverty measurement, they should be secondary to
the facts of deprivation that are being measured. Poverty has both absolute and relative
aspects, and these should be taken into account in any measurement of poverty.
2.7 STANDARDS AND AGGREGATION
You raise an important point. Comparing the poverty of two societies is a complex exercise, and
it is essential to find a common standard of necessities to make meaningful comparisons.
However, as you note, there are two types of exercises in such comparisons. One is to compare
the extent of deprivation in each community in relation to their respective standards of
minimum necessities, and the other is to compare the predicament of the two communities in
terms of some given minimum standard prevalent in one community. It is possible to make
both types of comparisons and to assert that there is less deprivation in one community than in
another in terms of some common standard, while at the same time, there is more deprivation
in the first community than in the second in terms of their respective standards of minimum
needs, which are higher in the first community. It is important to note that both types of
comparisons are of interest and that they are distinct from each other.
In comparing the poverty of two societies, it is also essential to take into account the
differences in the socio-economic, cultural, and historical context of the two communities.
Comparing poverty levels without considering the unique context of each community can lead
to erroneous conclusions.
Aggregation of different deprivations into an overall poverty indicator requires some method of
combining them. However, the method of combining these deprivations is not firmly
established and leaves room for arbitrariness. The constraints of acceptability are also weaker
here than in the exercise of identification based on a standard of minimum needs. The problem
of aggregation is similar to the problem of making aggregative descriptive statements in fields
such as comparisons of sporting achievements of different groups. There are circumstances in
which an aggregative statement like "Africans are better at sprint than Indians" is clearly
acceptable, and others where it is not. However, there are intermediate cases where either of
the two aggregative descriptive statements would be disputable.

Indeed, there is a certain degree of arbitrariness in the process of aggregating deprivations into
an overall indicator of poverty, which makes it difficult to avoid some level of subjectivity. Even
in the measurement of economic inequality, which is often considered an ethical exercise,
there are ambiguities and subjective elements. However, it is important to acknowledge and
clarify these ambiguities rather than to try to redefine the problem as an ethical one, which
may not fully address the original descriptive question. Despite the inherent ambiguities in the
notion of poverty, it is still possible to make meaningful and informative measurements by
being transparent about the methods used and the assumptions made.
2.8 CONCLUDING REMARKS
It is important to recognize that both absolute and relative deprivation are relevant in
understanding poverty. Absolute deprivation refers to the lack of basic necessities such as food,
shelter, and clothing, while relative deprivation refers to the discrepancy between what
individuals have and what they perceive as normal or desirable in their society. The focus on
relative deprivation has been particularly useful in highlighting the social and psychological
dimensions of poverty, such as feelings of powerlessness and exclusion. However, absolute
deprivation cannot be ignored, and it remains a crucial component of poverty analysis. Hunger
and starvation are extreme forms of absolute deprivation that must be addressed, especially in
the context of developing countries. The biological approach, which emphasizes the importance
of basic physiological needs, should not be dismissed but rather redefined in a way that
recognizes the broader social and cultural dimensions of poverty
In summary, both absolute and relative deprivation are important in understanding poverty,
and the two approaches should be viewed as complementary rather than competing. A
comprehensive understanding of poverty must take into account the multiple dimensions of
deprivation and the complex interplay between them.
Poverty is a complex and multi-faceted concept that cannot be fully captured by either absolute
or relative measures or by simply viewing it as a matter of inequality. It is primarily a descriptive
exercise rather than an ethical one, and the exercise of identifying and aggregating deprivations
involves inherent ambiguities and arbitrariness. Additionally, the commonly used policy
definition of poverty is flawed and requires recognition and appropriate treatment. Ultimately,
understanding and addressing poverty requires a nuanced and multi-dimensional approach that
takes into account both absolute and relative measures, as well as the diverse social, economic,
and cultural factors that contribute to the experience of poverty.