Other approaches

Consistent poverty measure

A number of measures of poverty combine different approaches to poverty measurement, in particular income and deprivation measures, to provide what’s called a consistent poverty measure.

In the Republic of Ireland, for example, their anti-poverty strategy uses a consistent poverty measure that combines relative income with deprivation of one of eight basic necessities (see Chapter 5 Bare Necessities: Poverty and Social Exclusion in Northern Ireland).

The UK Child Poverty Act 2010 combines relatively low income with material deprivation. It set a target to reduce to less than 5 per cent the proportion of children who live in material deprivation and have a low income (Child Poverty Act 2010: A short guide).

The PSE studies have examined the overlap between the consensual method of measuring poverty and a relative income poverty threshold. See ‘The concept and measurement of poverty’ and Chapter 5 in Bare Necessities: Poverty and Social Exclusion in Northern Ireland.

Minimum Income Standards

This approach, rather than looking at deprivation and at how various levels of deprivation relate to income, endeavours to establish a minimum income standard (MIS) below which people’s incomes should not fall. It does this by determining what it costs to meet minimum standards on food, goods, services, activities and other items – that is a minimum weekly budget is drawn up. This falls within the tradition outlined by Rowntree in his classic study of poverty in York in 1899 where he set out to establish a minimum budget level for subsistence.

There are two main approaches in establishing what should be covered in the basket of goods and services deemed as essential. The first draws on expert opinion, for example on nutrition levels, to come up with what should be covered in this minimum budget. The second follows the consensual method by involving members of the public, rather than experts, in establishing what people need to afford a minimum, socially acceptable standard of living. However, unlike the consensual method, where large-scale surveys are conducted to establish what are seen as necessities, in this approach a consensus is reached by discussion and negotiation through a sequential series of discussion groups. Having established a consensus, the components of this minimum standard are costed to produce a ‘Consensual Budget Standard’.

The Minimum Income Standards project, funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, combines these two approaches by allowing budgets based on social consensus to be tested against expert knowledge and research. The methodology underlying this project is set out in A Minimum Income Standard for Britain: What People Think by Jonathan Bradshaw et al. and further details can be found at the project website.

‘Minimum Income Standards: how might budget standards be set for the UK?’ by Christopher Deeming provides a summary of different approaches to setting minimum budgets within the UK;  Budget Standards for Jersey: A Handbook by Sue Middleton describes how a consensual budget standard was established for the State of Jersey; and Setting Adequacy Standards: How Governments Define Minimum Incomes by John Veit-Wilson  takes a broader look at international approaches to setting Minimum Income Standards.    

Capabilities-based poverty line

The idea of capabilities has been developed by Amartya Sen and is concerned with people’s abilities to lead the life that they not only value but have reason to value. This extends beyond income to other aspects of people’s lives. Amartya Sen outlines his capabilities-based approach to welfare on video at iTunesU (see track 3 for the video and track 4 for a transcript).

The problems with this approach have been to find ways to measure such a wide set of criteria. In Poverty, Capabilities and Measurement, Paul Anand, Christina Santos and Ron Smith (2008) set out an approach to tackling this problem and measuring capabilities.

A rights-based poverty line

How Poor is ‘Poor’? Towards a Rights-based Poverty Line is by David Woodward of the London-based New Economics Foundation. He proposes a rights-based poverty line, based on the level of income at which living standards consistent with economic and social rights are actually achieved in each country.

Subjective measures of poverty

A number of studies have taken a subjective approach to poverty measurement, asking questions such as:

• do they see themselves as being in poverty?
• is their income below, or a lot below, what is needed or not?

Details of this approach will be added to this website at a later stage.

References

Anand, P., Santos, C. and Smith, R. (2008) Poverty, Capabilities and Measurement, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Bradshaw, J., Middleton, S., Davis, A., Oldfield, N., Smith, N., Cusworth, L. and Williams, J. (2008) A Minimum Income Standard for Britain: What People Think, York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Deeming, C. (2005) ‘Minimum Income Standards: how might budget standards be set for the UK?’, Journal of Social Policy, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 619–36.
Gordon, D. (2006) ‘The concept and measurement of poverty’ in Pantazis, C., Gordon, D. and Levitas, R. Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain, Bristol, The Policy Press.
Hillyard P., Kelly, G., McLaughlin, E., Patsios, D. and Tomlinson, M. (2003) Bare Necessities: Poverty and Social Exclusion in Northern Ireland, Belfast, Democratic Dialogue.
Middleton, S. (2001) Budget Standards for Jersey: A Handbook, Loughborough, Centre for Research in Social Policy.
Veit-Wilson, J. (1998) Setting Adequacy Standards: How Governments Define Minimum Incomes, Bristol, The Policy Press.
Woodward, D. (2010) How Poor is ‘Poor’? Towards a Rights-based Poverty Line, London, New Economics Foundation.

PSE 2011 is a major collaboration between the University of Bristol, Heriot-Watt University, The Open University, Queen's University Belfast, University of Glasgow and the University of York working with the National Centre for Social Research and the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency.