Meaning versus measurement: why do ‘economic’ indicators of poverty still predominate?

Andrew Sumner

Development in Practice, 2007, vol. 17, issue 1, 4-13

Abstract: It is virtually undisputed that poverty is multi-dimensional. However, ‘economic’ or monetary measures of poverty still maintain a higher status in key development indicators and policy. This article is concerned with the apparent contradiction between the consensus over the meaning of poverty and the choice of methods with which to measure poverty in practice. A brief history of the meaning and measurement of poverty is given, and it is argued that ‘economic’ determinism, while it has gradually retreated from centrality in the meaning of poverty, has continued to dominate the measurement of poverty. This is followed by a section that contrasts the relative merits of ‘economic’ and ‘non-economic’ measures of poverty. The question is posed: why do ‘economic’ measures of poverty still have a higher status than non-economic measures?

Date: 2007
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09614520601092485 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:cdipxx:v:17:y:2007:i:1:p:4-13

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/cdip20

DOI: 10.1080/09614520601092485

Access Statistics for this article

Development in Practice is currently edited by Emily Finlay

More articles in Development in Practice from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().