Abstract
Despite the formal rigour that attends social and economic measurement, the substantive meaning of particular measures could be compromised in the absence of a clear and coherent conceptualization of the phenomenon being measured. A case in point is afforded by the status of a ‘focus axiom’ in the measurement of poverty. ‘Focus’ requires that a measure of poverty ought to be sensitive only to changes in the income-distribution of the poor population of any society. In practice, most poverty indices advanced in the literature satisfy an ‘incomefocus’ but not a ‘population-focus’ axiom. This, it is argued in the present paper, makes for an incoherent underlying conception of poverty. The paper provides examples of poverty measures which either satisfy both income and population focus or violate both, or which effectively do not recognize a clear dichotomization of a population into its poor and non-poor components, and suggests that such measures possess a virtue of consistency, and coherent meaning, lacking in most extant measures of poverty available in the literature.
References
Anand, S. (1977). Aspects of Poverty in Malaysia. Review of Income and Wealth 23(1): 1–16. http://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revinw/v23y1977i1p1-16.html10.1111/j.1475-4991.1977.tb00001.xSearch in Google Scholar
Barrientos, A. (2010). Should Poverty Researchers Worry About Inequality? Brooks World Poverty Institute Working Paper 118/2010, University of Manchester, U.K. http://ideas.repec.org/p/bwp/bwppap/11810.htmlSearch in Google Scholar
Broome, J. (1996). The Welfare Economics of Population. Oxford Economic Papers 48(2): 177–193. http://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/oxecpp/v48y1996i2p177-93.html10.1093/oxfordjournals.oep.a028564Search in Google Scholar
Chakravarty, S. R. (1983). ‘A new Index of Poverty’, Mathematical Social Sciences, 6(3): 307-313. http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/matsoc/v6y1983i3p307-313.htmlSearch in Google Scholar
Chakravarty, S., S. R. Kanbur and D. Mukherjee. 2006: ‘Population Growth and Poverty Measurement’, Social Choice and Welfare 26(3): 471-483. http://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/sochwe/v26y2006i3p471-483.html10.1007/s00355-006-0081-7Search in Google Scholar
Chiappero Martinetti, E. (2000): “A Multidimensional Assessment of Well-Being Based on Sen’s Functioning Approach”, Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 108(2): 207-239. http://www-3.unipv.it/cds/userfiles/file/Papers/paper_chiappero_1.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
Hassoun, N. (2010): Another Mere Addition Paradox? A Problem for Some Common Poverty Indexes in Variable Populations. WIDER Working Paper 2010/120. http://www.wider.unu.edu/publications/working-papers/2010/en_GB/wp2010-120/.Search in Google Scholar
Hassoun, N. and S. Subramanian (2011). An Aspect of Variable Population Poverty Comparisons. (forthcoming) Journal of Development Economics. [Available Online 4 August 2011: In Press, Corrected Proof, DOI: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2011.07.004].10.1016/j.jdeveco.2011.07.004Search in Google Scholar
Kundu, A. and T. E. Smith (1983), ‘An Impossibility Theorem on Poverty Indices’, International Economic Review, 24(2): 423-34. http://ideas.repec.org/a/ier/iecrev/v24y1983i2p423-34.html10.2307/2648756Search in Google Scholar
Parfit, D. (1997). ‘Equality and Priority’, Ratio (new series) 10(3): 202-221. http://individual.utoronto.ca/stafforini/parfit/parfit_-_equality_and_priority.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
Paxton, J. (2003): ‘A Poverty Outreach Index and its Application to Microfinance’, Economics Bulletin,. 9(2): 1-10. http://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/v9y2003i2p1-10.htmlSearch in Google Scholar
Qizilbash, M. (2003). ‘Vague Language and Precise Measurement: The Case of Poverty’, Journal of Economic Methodology, 10(1): 41-58. http://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jecmet/v10y2001i1p41-58.htmlSearch in Google Scholar
Pattanaik, P. K. and M. Sengupta (1995). ‘An Alternative Axiomatization of Sen’s Poverty Measure’, Review of Income and Wealth, 41(1): 73-80. http://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revinw/v41y1995i1p73-80.htmlSearch in Google Scholar
Sen, A.K. (1976a): `Poverty: An Ordinal Approach to Measurement’, Econometrica, 44(2): 219-31. http://ideas.repec.org/a/ecm/emetrp/v44y1976i2p219-31.html10.2307/1912718Search in Google Scholar
Sen, A.K. (1976b): `Real National Income’, Review of Economic Studies, 43(1): 19-39. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2296597?seq=210.2307/2296597Search in Google Scholar
Sen, A.K. (1981). Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. Oxford: Clarendon.Search in Google Scholar
Shorrocks, A. F. and S. Subramanian (1994): Fuzzy Poverty Indices (mimeo.). University of Essex.Search in Google Scholar
Subramanian, S. (2000). ‘Poverty Measurement and the Repugnant Conclusion’, S. Guhan Memorial Series Discussion Paper 3, Madras Institute of Development Studies, Chennai.Search in Google Scholar
Subramanian, S. (2002): `Counting the Poor: An Elementary Difficulty in the Measurement of Poverty’, Economics and Philosophy, 277-285. http://econpapers.repec.org/article/cupecnphi/v_3a18_3ay_3a2002_3ai_3a02_3ap_3a277-285_5f00.htmSearch in Google Scholar
Subramanian, S. (2009a). ‘Poverty Measurement in the Presence of a “Group Affiliation Externality”’, Journal of Human Development, 10(1): 63-76. http://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jhudca/v10y2009i1p63-76.html10.1080/14649880802675168Search in Google Scholar
Subramanian, S. (2009b). ‘A Practical Proposal for Simplifying the Measurement of Income Poverty’. In K. Basu and R. Kanbur (eds.): Arguments for a Better World: Essays in Honour of Amartya Sen, Volume 1: Ethics, Welfare, and Measurement. Oxford University Press: Clarendon.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199239115.003.0024Search in Google Scholar
Thon, D. (1979). ‘On Measuring Poverty’, Review of Income and Wealth, 25(4), pp. 429-439. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4991.1979.tb00117.x/pdfSearch in Google Scholar
© 2012 Subbu Subramanian, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
