CHAPTER THREE
4.0 TOWARDS THE NEW APPROACH
The proposed poverty measure will be constructed using the Consensual Approach but based on an assumption that assets as valued by public opinion are more important than income. In the consensual approach, public opinion is used, for example via a ballot, to detennine the socially perceived necessities of life (see Mack & Lansley, 1985).
Thus, the minimum asset basket should represent a snapshot of the asset holding of the units of analysis at a given point in time and space infonned by culture, religion, traditions and nonns. Ultimately, the asset bundle must reflect the local landscape and indigenous ways of livelihood although defined in monetary tenns for it to be able to talk to income. Given the above, it is now possible to firstly define an asset-threshold, secondly value it and thirdly come up with an asset-poverty line against which a household is considered poor if it falls below the threshold (Mtapuri, 2005).
5.0 CONCLUSION
This chapter has sought to extend the discussion on the measurement of poverty by revisiting the income threshold and supporting a notion of asset threshold for developing countries using the consensual approach. It also contends that rather than use income generic measures of poverty in developing countries, a new approach should be researched that takes into account the underlying asset base and prevailing nonns and values in self-definition of poverty. This chapter makes three contributions. First, it postulates developing an asset threshold for poverty that can be used to count the poor, rank geographic areas and provide some spatial depiction of poverty in the fonn of Asset Poverty Maps. Poverty will be defined as a shortfall from the asset-threshold, the minimally adequate asset level (MAAL). It should be borne in mind, however, that the asset threshold is not transferable to other places if typicality cannot be established. In other words, the asset-threshold is contextual and location-specific in nature, which could be one of its shortcomings.
Second, it reflects on the income and non-Income components of poverty and the measurement methods and brings out the importance of the asset-threshold approach. It argues that researching a new asset threshold is worthwhile in so far as using such a threshold as a basis for intervention makes the intervention direct, for example, asset for
asset. Governments and NGOs will find an entry point with targeted interventions, which can be administered piecemeal depending on the available capacities. Ultimately, life can be self-sustainable as households and communities become empowered. Moreover, an asset-threshold brings out particular specific and peculiar circumstances of the poor as well as providing a fresh perspective and framework for measuring poverty. Thus an asset-threshold can be useful for purposes of allocating resources and setting and monitoring targets.
Third, it shows that assets are multi-dimensional because they include income or cash.
Given the shortcomings of income measures, the design of social programmes cannot rest solely on income related indices since income does not fully reflect equity and the situation of the poor. Ngwane et al. (2001) notes that' different measures of poverty give different pictures about the number of people who are poor'. Thus, the quest for a home- grown poverty measure is imperative.
REFERENCES
Anand Sand Sen A. 2000. The Income Component of the Human Development Index.
Journal oJHuman Development, 1(2): 83-106.
Boltvinik J. n.d. Poverty measurement methods.
www.undp.orglpoverty/publications/pov redl Accessed 20 February 2005.
Boltvinik J. 1994. Poverty measurement and alternative indicators oJ development. In Van der Hoeven Rand Anker R (Eds), Poverty monitoring: an international concern., London: Macmillan, and New York: St Martins, pp. 57-83.
Bradshaw J. 1993.Budget standardsJor the United Kingdom. Aldershot: Avebury.
Chipika JT. 1998. Macro-economic policymaking and the dimensions of social security in the rural areas of Zimbabwe. Paper presented at the Conference on Zimbabwe:
Macroeconomic policy, management and perfonnance since independence (1980-1998):
Lessons for the 21 st century.
Goedhart TH, Halberstadt V, Kapteyn A and Van Praag BMS. 1977. The poverty line.
concept and measurement.Journal oJHuman Resources, 12(2): 503-20.
Gordon D and Spicker P. 1999. The International Glossary on Poverty. London: Zed Books.
Hagenaars AJM. 1986. The perceptions oJpoverty. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hallerod B. 1994. Poverty in Sweden: A new approach to direct measurement of consensual poverty. Umea Studies in Sociology, 10(6), University ofUmea.
Haveman Rand Bershadker A. 1998. Self-reliance as a poverty criterion: trends In earnings capacity poverty, 1975 - 1992. American Economic Review,88(2): 342-7.
Haveman R. 1999. Self-reliance and poverty: net earnings capacity versus income for measuring poverty. Public policy brief, Jerome Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, New York.
Mack J and Lansley S. 1985.Poor Britain. London: Allen & Unwin.
Middleton S. 2000. Agreeing Poverty Lines: The Development of Consensual Budget Standards Methodology. In Bradshaw, J & Sainsbury, R (Eds), Researching Poverty., Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 59-76
May J, Attwood H, Ewang P, Lund F, Norton A and Wentzal W. 1998. Experience and Perceptions ofPoverty in South Africa. Durban: Praxis Publishing.
Mtapuri O. 2005. The missing link: asset-based measures of poverty, towards asset- income threshold and net worth threshold. Loyola Journal ofSocial Sciences, XIX(2).
Narayan D, Patel R, Schafft K, Rademacher A and Koch-Schulte S., 2000. Voices of the poor: can anyone hear us? Washington, DC: Oxford University Press for the World
Bank.
Ngwane A, Yadavalli V and Steffeno F. 2001. Poverty in South Africa: a statistical analysis. Development Southern Africa, 18(2): 201-15.
Nolan Band Whelan CT. 1996. Resources, deprivation and poverty, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Norton A, Bird B, Brock K, Kakande M and Turk C. 2001. A rough guide to PPAs. IDS (Institute of Development Studies).
http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/2384ll/ppa.pdf Accessed 5 August 2005.
Pigou AC. 1912. Wealth and Welfare. London: Macmillan& Co.
Pogge T. 2003. The first UN Millennium Development Goal: a cause for celebration?
Oslo Lecture in Moral Philosophy, University of Oslo on September 11, 2003, Oslo.
Retrieved on 15 June 2008 from
http://www.etikk.no/globaljustice/oslo Global Justice mainlecture.doc
Pogge T and Reddy S. 2003. Unknown: the extent, distribution and trend of global income poverty. New York: Columbia University.
Raya RR. 2001. An alternative measure of poverty and human capability: introducing the quality of life index. Social Watch, Philippines:96-120.
http://www.aer.ph/pdf/sw2001/articlei2001 phi.pdf Accessed 22 August 2005.
Rowntree BS. 1901. Poverty: a study oftown life, London: Macmillan.
Sen AK. 1983. Poor, relatively speaking. Oxford Economic Papers, 35: 153-69.
Townsend P. 1979.Poverty in the United Kingdom. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Townsend P. 1985. A sociological approach to the measurement of poverty: a rejoinder to Professor Amartya Sen. Oxford Economic Papers, 37: 659-68.
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 1990. Human Development Report, Technical Note 1: 104-9.
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 1996. Human Development Report.
New York: Oxford University Press.
World Bank. 1993. Poverty and income distribution in Latin America: the story of the 1980s. Washington, DC: World Bank.