Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T05:20:33.291Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Poverty as Capability Deprivation: Conceptualising and Measuring Poverty in Contemporary Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2015

Rod Hick
Rod Hick*
Affiliation:
Cardiff University [[email protected]].
Get access

Abstract

Poverty analysis is in the midst of a multidimensional “turn” due, in part, to the growing awareness of the limitations of relative income measures of poverty. In this paper, we argue that the conceptualisation of poverty remains a neglected aspect of this multidimensional turn to date, and demonstrate that the counter-intuitive results which flow from relative income analyses are not problems of measurement, but are entirely consistent with the conceptualisation of poverty under Peter Townsend’s dominant Poverty as Relative Deprivation framework. In response to these problems we articulate an alternative framework, Poverty as Capability Deprivation, drawing on Amartya Sen’s capability approach, and argue that this provides more persuasive explanations as to why some nations have greater poverty than others and why poverty remains a problem even in the richest nations.

Résumé

L’analyse de la pauvreté est au beau milieu d’un « tournant » multidimensionnel dû, en partie, à la prise de conscience croissante des limites des mesures de pauvreté en termes de revenus relatifs. Dans cet article, nous affirmons non seulement que la conceptualisation de la pauvreté reste un aspect négligé de ce tournant multidimensionnel, mais nous démontrons que les résultats contre-intuitifs qui découlent des analyses en termes de revenus relatifs ne sont pas des problèmes de mesure, mais sont avant tout congruents avec le cadre dominant de la pauvreté défini par Peter Townsend dans son ouvrage intitulé La Pauvreté comme Privation Relative. Pour résoudre ces problèmes, nous élaborons un cadre alternatif qui s’appuie sur l’approche des « capacités » d’Amartya Sen, La Pauvreté comme privation de capacité, et qui permet d’expliquer pourquoi certaines nations conservent un niveau de pauvreté plus élevé que d’autres et pourquoi la pauvreté demeure un problème même dans les nations les plus riches.

Zusammenfassung

Die Armutsdiagnose befindet sich inmitten einer multidimensionalen Wende, die zum Teil auf das wachsende Zugeständnis zurückzuführen ist, dass Einkommensmaßnahmen nur begrenzte Auswirkungen auf die Armut haben. In diesem Beitrag behaupten wir, dass die Konzeptualisierung der Armut im Rahmen dieser multidimensionalen Wende vernachlässigt wird und zeigen auf, dass die gegenintuitiven Ergebnisse, die auf relativen Einkommensuntersuchungen fußen, keine Messfehler sind, sondern sich durch Peter Townsends Konzeptualisierung der Armut, wie in seinem Werk „Poverty as Relative Deprivation“ beschrieben, erklären lassen. Zur Problemlösung tragen wir mit einem alternativen Raster bei, „Poverty as Capability Deprivation“ – Armut als Fähigkeitsentzug, aufbauend auf Amartya Sens Fähigkeitsansatz und argumentieren, dass dieser Ansatz besser erklärt, warum manche Nationen eine größere Armut als andere kennen und warum Armut selbst in reichsten Ländern ein Problem bleibt.

Keywords

CapabilityDeprivationPovertyAmartya SenPeter TownsendCapacitéPrivationPauvretéAmartya SenPeter TownsendFähigkeitEntzugArmutArmatya SenPeter Townsend
Type
State of The Art
Information
European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , December 2014 , pp. 295 - 323
Copyright
Copyright © A.E.S. 2014 

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alkire, Sabina, 2007. “The Missing Dimensions of Poverty Data: Introduction to the Special Issue”, Oxford Development Studies, 35 (4): 347-359.Google Scholar
Alkire, Sabina and Foster, James, 2011. “Counting and Multidimensional Poverty Measurement”, Journal of Public Economics, 95 (7), 476-487.Google Scholar
Alkire, Sabina and Santos, Maria Emma, 2010. “Acute Multidimensional Poverty: A New Index for Developing Countries”, ophi Working Paper N° 38, Oxford.Google Scholar
Atkinson, Tony, Cantillon, Bea, et al. ., 2002. Social indicators: The EU and Social Inclusion (Oxford, Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, Tony, Cantillon, Bea, Marlier, Eric and Nolan, Brian, 2005. “Taking forward the EU Social Inclusion Process: An Independent Report Commissioned by the Luxembourg Presidency of the Council of the European Union”.Google Scholar
Anand, Sudhir and Sen, Amartya, 1997. “Concepts of Human Development and Poverty: A Multidimensional Perspective”, Human Development Papers (New York, undp: 19).Google Scholar
Berthoud, Richard, 2012). “Calibrating a Cross-European Poverty Line”, iser Working Paper Series, n° 2012-02, Institute for Social and Economic Research (iser), University of Essex.Google Scholar
Berthoud, Richard and Bryan, Mark, 2011). “Income, Deprivation and Poverty: A Longitudinal Analysis”, Journal of Social Policy, 40 (1): 135-156.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, Jonathan and Finch, Naomi, 2003. “Overlaps in Dimensions of Poverty”, Journal of Social Policy, 32 (4): 513-525.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, Jonathan, Hoelscher, Petra, et al. ., 2007. “An index of child well-being in the European Union”, Social Indicators Research, 80 (1): 133-177.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, Jonathan and Mayhew, Emese, 2011. The Measurement of Extreme Poverty in the European Union, European Commission.Google Scholar
Brandolini, Andrea and D’Alessio, Giovanni, 1998. Measuring well-being in the functioning space. Rome, Banco d’Italia Research Department.Google Scholar
Coates, Ken and Silburn, Richard, 1973. Poverty: The Forgotten Englishmen (London, Penguin).Google Scholar
Coromaldi, Manuela and Zoli, Mariengela, 2012). “Deriving Multidimensional Poverty Indicators: Methodological Issues and an Empirical Analysis for Italy” Social indicators research, 107 (1): 37-54.Google Scholar
Doyal, Len and Gough, Ian, 1991). A Theory of Human Need (Basingstoke, Macmillan Education Ltd).Google Scholar
Drydyk, Jay, 2011. “Responsible Pluralism, Capabilities, and Human Rights”, Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 12 (1): 39-61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eurostat, n. d. “People at Risk of Poverty after Social Transfers”, Tables, Graphs and Maps Interface, Retrieved 3 August 2012.Google Scholar
Fahey, Tony, 2007. “The Case for an EU-Wide Measure of Poverty”, European Sociological Review, 23 (1): 35-47.Google Scholar
Fahmy, Eldin, Pemberton, Simon, et al. ., 2011. “Public Perceptions of Poverty, Social Exclusion and Living Standards: Preliminary Report on Focus Group Findings”, Poverty and Social Exclusion in the UK: The 2011 Survey, Working Paper Series, N° 12, Bristol, pse).Google Scholar
Ferreira, Fransisco and Lugo, Maria Ana, 2013. “Multidimensional Poverty Analysis: Looking for a Middle Ground”, The World Bank Research Observer, lks013.Google Scholar
Gordon, David and Pantazis, Christina, (eds.), 1997. Breadline Britain in the 1990s (Aldershot, Ashgate).Google Scholar
Gordon, David, Pantazis, Christina, et al. ., 2000. “Absolute and Overall Poverty: A European History and Proposal for Measurement”, in Gordon David and Peter, Breadline Europe: The measurement of poverty (Townsend, Bristol Policy Press).Google Scholar
Gordon, David, Mack, Joanna, Lansley, Stewart, Main, Gill, Nandy, Shailen, Patsios, Demi and Pomati, Marco, 2013. The Impoverishment of the UK: PSE UK first results: living standards, http://www.poverty.ac.uk/, last accessed 25 June 2013.Google Scholar
Guio, Anne-Catherine, Gordon, David and Marlier, Eric, 2012. Measuring Material Deprivation in the EU: Indicators for the Whole Population and Child-Specific Indicators, (Luxembourg, Eurostat).Google Scholar
Hick, Rod, 2012. “The Capability Approach: Insights for a New Poverty Focus”, Journal of Social Policy, 41 (2): 291-208.Google Scholar
Hick, Rod, 2013. “Poverty, Preference or Pensioners? Measuring Material Deprivation in the UK”, Fiscal Studies, 34 (1): 31-54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hick, Rod, (forthcoming a). “Material Poverty and Multiple Deprivation: The Distinctiveness of Multidimensional Assessment”, Journal of Public Policy.Google Scholar
Hick, Rod, (forthcoming b). “Three Perspectives on the Mismatch Between Measures of Material Poverty”, British Journal of Sociology.Google Scholar
Hick, Rod and Burchardt, Tania (forthcoming). “Capability Deprivation”, in David, Brady and Burton, L. M. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Social Science of Poverty (Oxford, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Kangas, Olli and Ritakallio, Velli-Matti, 2004. “Relative to What? Cross-National Picture of European Poverty Measured by Regional, National and European Standards”, Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper Series.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Steven, 2014. “Child Poverty Act 2010: a Short Guide”, House of Commons Library Standard, Note N° 5585.Google Scholar
Kennett, Patricia, 2006. “Constructing Categories and Data Collection”, in Patricia, Kennett (ed.), A Handbook of Comparative Social Policy (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar).Google Scholar
Kremakova, Milena (2013). “Too Soft for Economics, Too Rigid for Sociology, or Just Right? The Productive Ambiguities of Sen’s Capability Approach.” European Journal of Sociology, 53 (3): 393-419.Google Scholar
Legard, Robin, Gray, Michelle and Margaret, Blake, 2008. “Cognitive Testing: Older People and the FRS Material Deprivation Questions”, Department for Work and Pensions, Working paper N° 55.Google Scholar
Le Grand, Julian, 1991. Equity and choice: An essay in economics and applied philosophy (London, Harper Collins Academic).Google Scholar
Lister, Ruth, 2004. Poverty (Cambridge, Polity Press).Google Scholar
MacCàrthaigh, Seosamh, 2014. “Need and Poverty”, Policy and Politics, 42 (3): 459-473.Google Scholar
Mack, Joanna and Lansley, Stewart,1985. Poor Britain (London: George Allen & Unwin).Google Scholar
McKay, Stephen, 2004. “Poverty or Preference: What Do ‘Consensual Deprivation Indicators’ Really Measure?”, Fiscal Studies, 25 (2): 201-223.Google Scholar
Niemietz, Kristian, 2011. A New Understanding of Poverty: Poverty Measurement and Policy Implications (London, Institute of Economic Affairs).Google Scholar
Nolan, Brian and Whelan, Christopher T., 1996. Resources, Deprivation and Poverty (Oxford, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Nolan, Brian and Whelan, Christopher T., 2007. “On the Multidimensionality of Poverty and Social Exclusion”, in Stephen, Jenkins and Micklewright, John, Inequality and Poverty Re-examined (Oxford, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Nolan, Brian and Whelan, Christopher T., 2011. Poverty and Deprivation in Europe (Oxford, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Piachaud, David, 1981. “Peter Townsend and the Holy Grail”, New Society, 10 September 1981: 418-420.Google Scholar
Ravallion, Martin, 2011. “On Multidimensional Indices of Poverty”, Journal of Economic Inequality, 9 (2): 235-248.Google Scholar
Ravallion, Martin and Chen, Shaohua, 2009. “Weakly Relative Poverty”, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper (Washington,World Bank).Google Scholar
Rawls, John, 1971. A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Rawls, John, 1988. “The Priority of Right and Ideas of the Good”, Philosophy and public affairs, 17 (4): 251-276.Google Scholar
Robeyns, Ingrid, 2003. “Sen’s Capability Approach and Gender Equality: Selecting Relevant Capabilities”, Feminist Economic, 9 (2/3): 61-92.Google Scholar
Robeyns, Ingrid, 2005). “Assessing Global Poverty and Inequality: Income, Resources and Capabilities”, Metaphilosophy, 36 (1/2): 30-49.Google Scholar
Rowntree, Benjamin S., 1901. Poverty: A Study of Town Life (York, Macmillan and Co).Google Scholar
Rowntree, Benjamin S., 1941. Poverty and progress: A second social survey of York (London, Longmans, Green and Co).Google Scholar
Rowntree, Benjamin S. and Lavers, George R., 1951). Poverty and the Welfare State: A Third Social Survey of York Dealing Only With Economic Questions (London, Longmans, Green and Co).Google Scholar
Saunders, Peter and Abe, Aya, 2010. “Poverty and Deprivation in Young and Old: A Comparative Study of Australia And Japan”, Poverty and Public Policy, 2 (1): 67-97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, Amartya, 1983. “Poor, Relatively Speaking”, Oxford Economic Papers, 35 (2): 153-169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, Amartya, 1985. “A Sociological Approach to the Measurement of Poverty: A Reply to Professor Peter Townsend”, Oxford Economic Papers, 37: 669-676.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya, 1992. Inequality Reexamined (New York, Russell Sage Foundation).Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya, 1995. “The Political Economy of Targeting” in Dominic, Van de Walle and Nead, Kimberly, Public Spending and the Poor (Washington, World Bank).Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya, 1999. Development as Freedom (Oxford, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya, 2000. “Social Exclusion: Concept, Application and Scrutiny”, Social Development Papers, Manila Asian Development Bank: 54.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya, 2009. The Idea of Justice (London, Allen Lane).Google Scholar
Stiglitz, Joseph, Sen, Armatya, et al. ., 2009. Commission on the Measurement of Economic and Social Progresshttp://www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/en/index.htm.Google Scholar
Sugden, Robert, 1993. “Welfare, resource and capabilities: A review of Inequality Re-examined by Amartya Sen”, Journal of Economic Literature, 31 (4): 1947-1962.Google Scholar
Townsend, Peter, 1954. “Measuring poverty”, The British Journal of Sociology, 5 (2): 130-137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, Peter, 1962. “The meaning of poverty”, The British Journal of Sociology, 13 (3): 210-227.Google Scholar
Townsend, Peter, 1970. “Measures and Explanations of Poverty in High Income and Low income Countries: The Problems of Operationalising the Concepts of Development, Class and Poverty”, in Townsend Peter The concept of poverty (London, Heinemann Educational Books).Google Scholar
Townsend, Peter, 1979. Poverty in the United Kingdom: A Survey of Household Resources and Standards of Living (Middlesex, Penguin).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, Peter, 1985. “A Sociological Approach to the Measurement of Poverty: A Rejoinder to Professor Amartya Sen”, Oxford Economic Papers, 37: 659-668.Google Scholar
Townsend, Peter, 1987. “Deprivation”, Journal of Social Policy, 16 (2): 125-146.Google Scholar
Unicef, 2012. Measuring Child Poverty: New League Table of Child Poverty in the World’s Rich Nations, U.I.R. Centre (Florence, Unicef Innocenti Research Centre).Google Scholar
Waglé, Udaya R., 2008. “Multidimensional Poverty: An Alternative Measurement Approach for the United States?”, Social Science Research, 37 (2): 559-580.Google Scholar
Whelan, Christopher T. and Maître, Bertrand, 2009a. “Poverty and Deprivation in Ireland in a Comparative Perspective”, ESRI Research Series (Dublin, Economic and Social Research Institute, 11: 80).Google Scholar
Whelan, Christopher T. and Maître, Bertrand, 2009b. “Comparing Poverty Indicators in an Enlarged European Union”, European Sociological Review, 26 (5): 1-18.Google Scholar
Whelan, Christopher T. and Maître, Bertrand, 2014. “Multidimensional Poverty Measurement in Europe: An Application of the Adjusted Headcount Approach”, Journal of European Social Policy, 24 (2): 183-197.Google Scholar
Whelan, Christopher T., Nolan, Brian, et al. ., 2007). Consistent poverty and economic vulnerability (Dublin, Institute of Public Administration).Google Scholar
Wolff, Jonathan and Avner, de-Shalit, 2007. Disadvantage (Oxford, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar