Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 67
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Kaptan, Kubilay 2016. Probability of Being ‘Multidimensional’ Poor. Social Indicators Research,

    Kouvo, Antti and Räsänen, Pekka 2015. Foundations of subjective well-being in turbulent times. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol. 35, Issue. 1/2, p. 2.

    Lau, Maggie Gordon, David Pantazis, Christina Sutton, Eileen and Lai, Lea 2015. Including the Views of the Public in a Survey of Poverty and Social Exclusion in Hong Kong: Findings from Focus Group Research. Social Indicators Research, Vol. 124, Issue. 2, p. 383.

    Morelli, Salvatore Smeeding, Timothy and Thompson, Jeffrey 2015.

    Smeeding, Tim 2015. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences.

    Tunstall, Becky 2015. Relative housing space inequality in England and Wales, and its recent rapid resurgence. International Journal of Housing Policy, Vol. 15, Issue. 2, p. 105.

    Voicu, Bogdan 2015. Book Review: Francesco Sarracino and Malgorzata Mikucka. 2014. Beyond Money: the Social Roots of Health and Well-being, New York: Nova Science. Applied Research in Quality of Life, Vol. 10, Issue. 1, p. 189.

    Awad, Isabel 2014. Journalism, Poverty, and the Marketing of Misery: News From Chile's “Largest Ghetto”. Journal of Communication, Vol. 64, Issue. 6, p. 1066.

    Callander, Emily J Schofield, Deborah J and Shrestha, Rupendra N 2012. Towards a holistic understanding of poverty: A new multidimensional measure of poverty for Australia. Health Sociology Review, Vol. 21, Issue. 2, p. 141.

    Callander, Emily J Schofield, Deborah J and Shrestha, Rupendra N 2012. Towards a holistic understanding of poverty: A new multidimensional measure of poverty for Australia. Health Sociology Review, Vol. 21, Issue. 2, p. 141.

    Liu, Yang Wang, Mei Villberg, Jari Torsheim, Torbjørn Tynjälä, Jorma Lv, Yan and Kannas, Lasse 2012. Reliability and Validity of Family Affluence Scale (FAS II) among Adolescents in Beijing, China. Child Indicators Research, Vol. 5, Issue. 2, p. 235.

    WRIGHT, GEMMA and NOBLE, MICHAEL 2012. Does Widespread Lack Undermine the Socially Perceived Necessities Approach to Defining Poverty? Evidence from South Africa. Journal of Social Policy, p. 1.

    Pfoertner, Timo-Kolja Andress, Hans-Juergen and Janssen, Christian 2011. Income or living standard and health in Germany: different ways of measurement of relative poverty with regard to self-rated health. International Journal of Public Health, Vol. 56, Issue. 4, p. 373.

    Symonds, James 2011. The Poverty Trap: Or, Why Poverty is Not About the Individual. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, Vol. 15, Issue. 4, p. 563.

    Carle, Adam C. Bauman, Kurt J. and Short, Kathleen 2009. Assessing the Measurement and Structure of Material Hardship in the United States. Social Indicators Research, Vol. 92, Issue. 1, p. 35.

    Krumer‐Nevo, Michal 2009. From voice to knowledge: participatory action research, inclusive debate and feminism. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, Vol. 22, Issue. 3, p. 279.

    Whelan, Christopher T. and Maître, Bertrand 2009. THE ‘EUROPEANISATION’ OF REFERENCE GROUPS. European Societies, Vol. 11, Issue. 2, p. 283.

    Dewilde, Caroline 2008. Individual and institutional determinants of multidimensional poverty: A European comparison. Social Indicators Research, Vol. 86, Issue. 2, p. 233.

    DEWILDE, CAROLINE and RAEYMAECKERS, PETER 2008. The trade-off between home-ownership and pensions: individual and institutional determinants of old-age poverty. Ageing and Society, Vol. 28, Issue. 06, p. 805.

    Noble, Michael W. J. Wright, Gemma C. Magasela, Wiseman K. and Ratcliffe, Andrew 2008. Developing a Democratic Definition of Poverty in South Africa. Journal of Poverty, Vol. 11, Issue. 4, p. 117.


Problems in the Definition and Measurement of Poverty*


Three approaches to defining poverty levels are discussed—social consensus approaches, budget standard methods, and behavioural approaches. Each addresses different questions and none, of itself, has provided—nor, it is argued, could ever provide—an objective definition of poverty. The paper then raises problems that have been largely neglected in defining poverty. First, the treatment of time and home production: the time and ability of individuals to prepare food or to wash and feed without assistance, for example, vary greatly depending on circumstances and in turn affect income needs. Choices and constraints affecting the household formations in which people live and their budgeting behaviour are also important in assessing poverty. Individual variations in behaviour need to be explicitly recognised if practical definitions of poverty levels are to be found. Finally, the paper condemns discussions of poverty that are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Social Policy
  • ISSN: 0047-2794
  • EISSN: 1469-7823
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-social-policy
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *