In literature regarding the definition of poverty, authors have tended to identify two general approaches that categorise the way that poverty has been defined – in absolute or in relative terms. In a purely academic sense these approaches can be isolated into different compartments, whereas in research and policy practice, when attempts are made to quantify poverty, these notions overlap. Furthermore, Amartya Sen’s concept of poverty as a gauge of capability failure raises a challenge to the long held dichotomy perceived between these absolute and relative definitions.
The Absolute - Relative Dichotomy
Definitions of absolute poverty have been commonly associated in the literature with the work of Charles Booth (1892-1903) and Seebohm Rowntree’s (1901) studies of poverty in York undertaken in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. A person is said to be defined as being in absolute poverty when they lack the money or resources to meet the basic biological needs of survival. This notion has been viewed as a subsistence
approach to defining poverty with a “basket of goods” containing a list of essential items defined as necessary for the preservation of life. The most basic of these goods is food, so it has been argued that people can be defined as poor in absolute terms if they are identified as being unable to afford to eat. The idea of defining poverty in this way is open to being challenged on the grounds that it overlooks geographical and cultural differences as well as the inherent difficulty in compiling a historically transferable list of items deemed necessary for survival. Cross-national comparison is revealed as problematic when endeavouring to regard poverty in absolute terms as for example the list of goods required for survival in a culture in sub Saharan Africa would be different from what is necessary for survival in a modern New Zealand city.
The leading proponent of what has come to be known as a relative approach to defining poverty is Peter Townsend. In his 1979 book Poverty in the United Kingdom he critiqued the notion of an absolute definition of poverty and defined poverty as “relative
51
Individuals, families and groups in the population can be said to be in poverty when they lack the resources to obtain the types of diet, participate in the activities and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or are at least widely encouraged or approved, in the societies to which they belong. Their resources are so seriously below those commanded by the average individual or family that they are, in effect, excluded from ordinary living patterns and activities (Townsend, 1979:31).
Thus, when regarding the notion of relative poverty the emphasis has been on a deviation from a social norm of well-being relative to a particular society at a particular time. Social participation becomes a key factor and people are defined as deprived when they cannot achieve or obtain the necessary things that allow them to participate in their society because they lack the requisite resources. Townsend argued however that relative poverty is not the same as inequality. In theory therefore (if not in reality) there could be a society with its resources distributed unequally without the condition of poverty existing if all the members of the society had their social needs met. Bauman (1998) extended the argument of poverty as being relative to a particular society by theorising that the poor in
modern consumer societies could be viewed as “flawed consumers” who are excluded from keeping up with contemporary consumption patterns. Bauman’s ideas bring an
awareness of the changing nature of consumption patterns, and the increased value
attributed to brand names, which seem to matter in today’s social world to a far greater
extent than they have mattered previously. The idea of defining poverty in relative terms therefore, has asked us to look at poverty as the incapacity to meet social needs and changing aspirations and expectations (broadly defined) as well as basic needs, which includes considering basic items such as food as a socialised need.
The delineation in the literature between definitions of poverty as absolute or as relative has been reconciled to some extent however. Scholars such as Veit-Wilson’s detailed
rereading of Rowntree’s studies revealed that he used a basic list of goods to show that “the life style of the poor was at least in part caused by low income and not by
improvidence” (Viet-Wilson, 1986:69). Furthermore, Mack and Lansley (1985) argued that the original poverty studies of Rowntree did not ignore social needs and that he included “social” items such as tea on his list of needs. They revealed that Rowntree was
52
poor often ignored what were defined as their “basic” needs to meet their “social” needs. In light of this shift in understanding poverty definition, Lister (2004) argues that it is
more accurate to regard Townsend’s notion of relative poverty as building on Booth and Rowntree’s studies rather than as replacing them.
Amartya Sen and the Absolutist Core – Poverty as Capability Failure
Sen offers a way of defining poverty that utilises both absolute and relative notions. He critiques the use of a relative definition on its own as it can serve to downplay the level of subsistence poverty in third world countries. Essentially, Sen sees that defining poverty in terms of income and living standards is not of interest for its own sake, as these things are just instrumental to what kind of life a person can lead and what choices and opportunities are open to them (Sen, 1999). Sen believes that while acknowledging relative deprivation in a society, poverty must be defined in absolute terms. Poverty, he argued, must always be seen as having an irreducible absolute core that is manifested in starvation and malnutrition (Sen, 1983). This means that people defined as in poverty will
lack a basic opportunity to “be or do” in vital ways, regardless of comparisons with others
within or without their society. Sen (1990, 1992) uses the notion of capabilities, which relates to what a person can do or be - the full range of possible choices available to them. This concept is related to both the external opportunities available to the person but also to the person and their ability to exercise their personal agency effectively. Thus, capability failure can refer to the relationship between low income and the ability to live a life of value, as well as interpersonal variation and the effect of this in any given
population. Sen’s concept of an absolute core of poverty is located in this space of capabilities - what a person is able to do or be given their situation. He argues that the role of money in a society depends on the extent of the commodification of goods and services and that this varies between societies. The relationship between money and capabilities depends on how easily individuals can convert money into capabilities and this also varies according to personal factors. Although he views money as not the only factor involved in poverty, Sen proposes that it is sensible to view low income as a major
cause for a person’s capability deprivation. Thus, he argues, that poverty can be seen as
relative when talking about access to commodities, as those things that are needed to translate absolute ability into being do vary in a social and historical context (Sen, 1999).
53
Living a life of value is a fundamental factor in Sen’s analysis of what constitutes
poverty. Arguably, this definition has a positive emphasis by asking us to look at how people can achieve a life where they can flourish rather than a negative emphasis on looking at a lack of material resources in a society. Poverty as capability failure however, has been critiqued because of the difficulty in separating what is conventionally known as
“poverty” defined in terms of low income and living standards, from other conditions, for example “disability”, that weaken capabilities (Lister, 2004). In addition to the somewhat ambiguous nature of defining the relationship between “poverty” and “capability”,
theorists are concerned that downplaying the importance of income when defining poverty may lead to policies that do not encourage an increase in the incomes of those in poverty. Thus, Lister argues that capabilities with a focus on agency need to be located within a structural analysis to avoid an emphasis on individualism and neo-classical economics (Lister, 2004:20).
Summary
In this section, I have overviewed key understandings and debates contained in the literature about how poverty can be more precisely defined and the difficulty in reaching a consensus about this. Absolute definitions tend to assume a scarcity of basic resources; relative definitions have a greater focus on the social component of poverty, while a focus on capabilities invites us to take a closer look at how the individual is managing poverty and how their life is affected by poverty. Defining poverty facilitates how the broader concepts that surround the nature of poverty are translated into policy practice in a society. Furthermore, the way poverty comes to be defined will feed back into how it is thought about and acted upon. In the next section of the chapter I will be taking a look at the various ways that poverty has been measured. Measurement forms an integral part of the discursive practice that surrounds poverty and its management.