Poverty, it seems, is much like pornography. As one Supreme Justice and decision often quoted reflects: You know it when you see it. That is, an agreeable definition and measurement of and for poverty is lacking. Poor is poor. But when is poor poverty? Several arguments from researchers admit that no agreement exists on the very definition of poverty but research nevertheless attempts to suggest viable measurements and methods to better characterize toward a working definition of poverty. Based on a lack of agreement on a definition of poverty and how best to measure it toward such a definition, one may be best left with “I know it when I see it” understanding.
Atkinson writes that “the methods employed in the measurement of poverty have been
the subject of criticism,” examining the three basic issues in measuring poverty, which include, the “choice of the poverty line, the index of poverty, and the relation between poverty and
inequality.” Atkinson acknowledges that there remains a “diversity of judgments which enter the measurement of poverty.” Atkinson’s definition of poverty remains judgmental.Glennerster discusses the American contribution to the study of poverty over the past 25 years, viewed from a “comparative perspective.” Glennerster argues that the “U.S. poverty line” has “remained fundamentally unchanged” since 1977 “despite increasingly important deficiencies in the way” poverty was calculated.” The definition of poverty through metrics did not change for Glennerster.
Brady suggests that to derive a definition and better measurement for poverty, one should consider and do some of the following things. One should first measure comparative historical variation effectively and be relative rather than absolute. One should conceptualize poverty as social exclusion and assess the impact of taxes, transfers, and state benefits. And last but not least, one should integrate the depth of poverty and the inequality among the poor.
Brady suggests that to derive a definition and better measurement for poverty, one should consider and do some of the following things. One should first measure comparative historical variation effectively and be relative rather than absolute. One should conceptualize poverty as social exclusion and assess the impact of taxes, transfers, and state benefits. And last but not least, one should integrate the depth of poverty and the inequality among the poor.
Atkinson, Glennerster and Brady, researchers all, fail to adequately define, measure and quantify a usable “talking point” about what poverty is. Ask an impoverished person for a definition, accurate measurement or quantification and the impoverished might simply point out that you must know me because you are asking me. You know it when you see it. Apparently you can’t easily prosecute it.
