Update

A Walk off the Beaten Tracks? New Frontiers in Measuring Poverty

The objective of the AAU on Poverty is to provide state-of-the-art knowledge to practitioners in the field, professionals from international and national organizations, and others working in the area of development aid and poverty reduction. The two-day training aims at presenting and debating old and new concepts and methods in a concentrated form by brining together a select group of renowned specialists in the field. Participants will have ample opportunity to discuss with the specialists, either in the sessions or during the various possibilities for an informal exchange.

No one would disagree that poverty is a multidimensional concept. Only measuring monetary poverty neglects other social risks that have short and long run impacts on the wellbeing of households and individuals. Over the years, different approaches emerged aimed at including non-monetary dimensions into the poverty concept. Examples of such non-welfarist approaches are basic needs, capabilities, well-being, deprivation, or vulnerability that explicitly aimed at incorporating non-monetary dimensions into the poverty debate. However, also within the monetary camp, discussions are ongoing on what indicators are best suited to determine the monetary living standard of a household.

Defining an indicator for well-being is the first step in any poverty analysis. Secondly, a threshold has to be chosen separating the poor from the non-poor allowing us to assess the size of the problem. Poverty lines come in all colors and shapes. A main distinction is between absolute and relative poverty lines where the former is set at a value deemed the minimum level for a given society. Relative poverty, on the other hand depends on the overall welfare distribution of the society. It is a moving concept and many say that relative poverty is just the reflection of inequality in a country. Both approaches are, however, popular. The US, for example, has a long tradition using absolute poverty lines, while the EU applies a relative threshold to monitor poverty developments in the member countries. Governments from middle- and low-income countries often struggle with the definition of national poverty lines since the choice is politically sensitive. Does it really matter? Are there alternatives?

Another trend is the analysis of poverty at the very local level. For a couple of years now we have seen the establishment of poverty maps where household survey and census data are econometrically treated in such a way that they provide poverty rates at the lowest administrative levels. How reliable are these measures? What about measurement errors? There are alternatives depending less on survey data but using administrative data. Such small area deprivation indices have the advantage of combining monetary with non-monetary dimensions of well-being.

Clearly, the science of measuring poverty and well-being is ongoing. For this Advanced Academic Update the Maastricht School of Governance brings together a select group of renowned specialist with extensive experience in the analysis of poverty from different angles. The participants will learn about the latest developments in poverty research and their applicability for work in the field. Furthermore, the presentations will provide a wealth of empirical information from applied research.

Please click here to view the detailed programme of this AAU >>

Followed by the AAU on poverty measurement the School organizes a research conference: The Pursuit of Certainty: Applications in measuring poverty (21 - 22 November 2007)