Introduction A considerable amount

A considerable amount of research has been focused on understanding

impoverishment and the attempts to successfully counter its repercussions through

socioeconomic programs. While poverty is undoubtedly a problem in Egypt, the measure

of its dimension and magnitude is inconclusive.

While there are many interrelated components that influence changes between

poverty and marginalized groups in Egypt, one of the most crucial factors is the role of

the Egyptian State in regard to its constituents. Government policies and ministerial

interests are inextricably linked to the politics of welfare development and poverty. An

examination of the different agencies, along with the motivations and obligations of the

government to its citizens, can contribute in shedding light on both the historical and

current complexities of the political economy in Egypt.

According to the Egyptian constitution, the responsibilities of the State to its

citizens include guaranteeing both equality of opportunity to all Egyptians (Article 8) and

cultural, social and health services (Article 16). Furthermore, Article 7 states that social

solidarity is the basis of Egyptian society. The constitution asserts that both work and

education are rights guaranteed by the State (Article 13 and 18). These are a few of the

rights and services constitutionally guaranteed to all Egyptian citizens.

One of the most critical groups in Egyptian society is the extreme poor. This

group represents the very bottom strata of a population. The extreme poor are the most

vulnerable, disadvantaged, and high-risk members of society. Because of this level of

deprivation, many institutions directly target and serve this particular group.

In the case of Egypt, it is important to examine the obligations and commitments

of the government toward this particular group of people in order to understand some of

the broader processes of poverty reduction, welfare, and social protection in Egypt. What

is the Egyptian Government’s attitude and approach toward the domestic problem of

poverty, and to what extent does the role of the poor affect this standpoint? The ability

and effectiveness of the state to carry out polices that target the poor can be directly

connected to the bureaucratic and political struggles in the Egyptian policy making

process. This thesis aims to shed light on policies pursued by the government that directly

or indirectly affect the poor in Egypt and address the attitudes of the state that determine

how social protection or deprivation is defined.

If the government addresses the problems of the poor, is this enough to change the

poverty map of Egypt? Should they pursue more welfare-oriented policies? Do they or

should they focus on the process of poverty or on reducing inequality? Which would be

most beneficial to the “poorest” sectors of society? By focusing more on growth and the

economy, does this help the overall social issues? What are the commitments of the

government in terms of particular economic or political polices that can be detrimental to

bottom rung of society?

The objective of this thesis is to determine how the Government of Egypt

identifies and addresses the needs of the poor through policy. The scope of this thesis

examines the narrative of poverty in Egypt through the welfare structure of the state. The

role of development, economy, trade, non-state and informal poverty alleviation

mechanisms, production, foreign aid, religion, and other socioeconomic aspects of Egypt

are not analyzed in this thesis. They are understood, if at all, through historicizing the

social contract in modern Egypt from Nasser to Mubarak. It is beyond the scope of this

thesis to fully address these elements, however it recognizes that they play important role

in the composition and changes within the country.

Let it be noted that when referring to different eras in Egypt, the policies and

actions of the state under a particular president are not attributed to a single personality or

action of one individual, but rather the collective group of behaviors of the government

they represent. It is beyond the scope of this thesis to fully and comprehensively examine

the role of different domestic institutions, international organizations, sociological groups,

administrative bureaucracy, individuals and other factors that influence the roles and

decision making of the Egyptian government. It is certainly noted that governments rarely

act with absolute autonomy. However, this thesis focuses primarily on the government

and population, not for the sake of excluding other actors, but to clearly draw an

important connection in state policy and poverty.

This project aims to contribute to current scholarship on both the micro and macro

scales. On the macro scale, I intend to provide a more comprehensive understanding of

the social, economic, and political dynamics between government and marginalized

groups of society.

On the macro scale, I intend to problematize many common assumptions used in

the politics of ultra poverty, social protection and the role of the state in Egypt. I also

intend to look explicitly at the objectives of the social protection packages and the role

they play, directly or indirectly in affecting the ultra poor groups of society.

Literature Review

Martin Ravallion is one of the most prominent and widely acknowledged scholars

on the theory of poverty and welfare, its definitions, and the process of development.

Khalid El Amin further compliments this research by expounding on Ravallion’s

empirical research to challenge commonly held assumptions that poverty is limited to

individual, homogenous categories such as income, consumption, nutrition, or

expenditure measurement. Ravallion and Amin expand on the limitations of

conceptualizing poverty in these ways to suggest that poverty is more dynamic than the

simple means of measurement. While there is no uniform methodology established for

accurately representing poverty, these indicators are more useful when used in

combination with another. It is their initial critique of the conceptual and methodological

problems associated with poverty and its definition that will be used as the framework for

this study. This is important when differentiating between poor, near poor, and absolute

or ultra poor. While previous scholarship has distinguished only between poor and

nonpoor, multidimensional analysis helps fill in some of the existing gaps and limits in

poverty research, allowing for a more dynamic and effective approach the underlying

causes of poverty.

Amartya Sen’s work on multidimensional poverty has paved the way for contemporary

scholarship. He developed alternative models to indicate poverty by measuring the

function and capability of an individual within a given society. This model is a more

realistic alternative to income, consumption, or expenditure based poverty lines. The

strongest element of his research is in the treatment of poverty as a relative concept, an

entity that is subject to the relative conditions of deprivation, freedom, choice, and human

capital. The qualitative nature of his poverty research takes a fundamental step forward

toward broadening the scope of poverty research by incorporating the social and political

aspects of wellbeing, not merely the material or tangible necessities of welfare. This is

crucial in determining not only the agency the ultra poor are capable of, but their social,

political, and economic assets.

Poverty frameworks by Rouchdy, Assad, Korayam, and El Laithy can be used to

understand the practical application of qualifying and quantifying subjective poverty in

Egypt, as well as the importance of understanding issues with demographic poverty lines.

By studying and comparing several prominent reports on socio-economic changes and

impoverishment in Egypt, the level of variance found among available research on the

topic, both in quality and content, is of significant consequence. In critiquing and utilizing

the data taken from the government surveys, it is relevant to note that there are differences

in opinion which researchers and institutions present as conclusive poverty data.

However, by utilizing the results of the differing interpretations of poverty analysis, a

broader picture of poverty in Egypt emerges. This will aid in determining the

characteristics, demography, and assets of the ultra poor. The background these authors

provide on poverty changes in Egypt help to understand who counts as ultra poor in

Egypt, how the social perimeters are defined, and why.

At this point, poverty has been analyzed at length by many of the field’s most

prominent scholars. Over time, a significant debate has emerged regarding the nature and

significance of poverty in Egypt in reference to existing political and social structures.

Within this debate there have emerged two preponderant paradigms of the direct and

indirect role of the Government on Egyptian society. The first operates on the theory that

the Government of Egypt does not adequately target, understand, or address crucial social

issues within Egypt, and, furthermore often exacerbates the problem by ignoring and

marginalizing the poorest in society. This theory recognizes the government of Egypt as a

monolithic, authoritarian and centrist government in which its constituents suffer from

dire socioeconomic problems, inequality social uncertainty, and political weaknesses.

The second paradigm is more sociologically based and concentrates primarily on a

new social contract instigated by the Government of Egypt as a means of alleviating some

of the major poverty related problems through targeted social programs, social protection,

civil society, and welfare.6 I seek to expand on the latter paradigm, looking at government

initiated social protection programs in Egypt, who they target, how they deliver their

mission, and the success of such initiatives. This new social contract between the

government and the people is founded on the necessary role of the Egyptian government

as a provider of rights and services to its citizens. I will also utilize official government

discourses and ministry agendas that directly pertain to social protection programs. This

can provide new insight on the government’s approaches to the social protection and the

ultra poor in society and how these policies and initiatives impact the process of poverty

in Egypt.

In order to understand the underlying political narratives associated with

ultrapoverty and social protection, Philip Marfleet, Maye Kassem, Galal Amin, and

Gouda Abdel-Khalek have published a collection of scholarly articles and books that

outline some of the most important and controversial issues that emerge in the Egyptian

political sphere such as the dynamic relationship between state and society, corruption,

authoritarianism, bureaucratic interests, inter-ministerial conflict neoliberalism, and

democracy. I will use these frameworks, along with work by Timothy Mitchell to

supplement my understanding of the Government of Egypt’s role and commitment to

society, specifically the poor segments of the population.

To contextualize the importance of the government as the primary actor in

facilitating the social, political, and economic well being of its population, I will draw on

Gøsta Esping-Andersen’s work on the role of the welfare state. This will be further

applied and supplemented by data on social programs and expenditure in Egypt by

Markus Loewe from the ECES and Ahmed Galal.

However, it must be noted that these academics contribute to issues in this thesis

from different disciplines and backgrounds—presenting an issue in interdisciplinary

academia. A fracture emerges in scholarship in an attempt this lofty goal to present a clear

and consecutive analysis of changes in the Egyptian narrative. It is an ambition of this

thesis to acknowledge a discrepancy in scholarship and present an independent and

alternative narrative of problems facing Egyptian economy, society, and polity. This

contributes to current scholarship by expanding on major areas of current literature

regarding discourses on poverty, the social contract, the welfare of citizens, and the role

of the state instead of relying primarily on frameworks based solely on political

dialogues, economic discourses, or sociological theory. For example, Mitchell’s

contribution to this field focus on issues regarding the political nature of the state and the

economic changes that occur as a result, however this thesis uses his work to support

elements within the historical narrative of Egypt. This thesis concedes that

crossdisciplinary incoherence’s are an issue, yet they are still valuable in understanding

many of the critical changes and narratives in the Egyptian context.

The first chapter will address the criteria used to quantify impoverishment through

indicators, thresholds, and poverty lines. It will also address the limits within these

arguments and contemporary alternative discourses. Second, it will expand on the

characteristics of poverty, such as the depth, severity, and vulnerability. Third, it will

address issues in the interpretation, perception and subjectivity of poverty. The second

part of this chapter will look at impoverishment in Egypt, as well as current research and

methodologies used to indicate and understand the process of poverty.

The second chapter will look at the historical theory behind a social contract. This

theory will then be applied to the relationship between the State and Egyptian citizens, by

historicizing the historical social contract in modern Egypt from Nasser to Mubarak and

looking at political and economic policies that affect the poor. Third, it will focus on the

shifts and transitions in state polices in terms of poverty, social spending, and

development.

The third chapter will focus on the policies of the government that affect the poor.

First, this is examined within the historical framework presented in chapter two and the

role of the poor within a regime. This role is approached through different mechanisms

for poverty reduction within the state, such as entitlements, services, provisions,

subsidies, incentives, and welfare. Second, this chapter will address the theoretical criteria

for a welfare state and Egypt’s attempted transition from a rentier state to a welfare state.

In order to establish this transition, the role of rentier economics and Washington

Consensus style development will be examined as important factors that contribute to

state polices and behavior in society. Third, state initiatives in social services (such as

healthcare, education and social protection) are addressed in the context of the state’s role

in a new social contract.

The fourth chapter provides a qualitative analysis drawn from interviews

conducted with Egyptian citizens, illustrating and supporting many conclusions drawn

from this thesis.

Chapter 1

WHO ARE THE POOR?

Poverty is a critical issue for many reasons and goes beyond just recognizing the

circumstances of those who are less fortunate. Concern for the impoverished stems from a

common bond between human beings. It is an individual or a community’s responsibility

as a member of a global society and the human race. Our opinions and beliefs towards

poverty should not condone apathy or indifference, but should galvanize individuals,

communities, and governments to take it upon themselves to aid fellow humans. The

recognition and perceptions of poverty lie in the process of identifying with an issue that

extends beyond religious, political, or social convictions. It is an issue of the human

condition. It is in humanity’s interest to reduce inequality, to address the suffering and

injustice amongst marginalized groups, and to protect the basic human needs of any

member of society. It is the awareness of the human condition that brings poverty to the

forefront of domestic development, humanitarian relief, and international aid. It is in the

interest of those who recognize poverty to attempt to alleviate it, regardless of the context.

Poverty, although found center stage in the international arena and the target of

numerous social and political agendas, is seldom understood. It has been the subject of

public attention, critical analysis, and contentious debate. A considerable amount of

research has centered on understanding impoverishment and attempting to successfully

counter its repercussions through social protection programs and economic development.

Many different debates exist on how to alleviate poverty through social, economic, and

political policies, yet whether such programs truly address the underlying causes of

poverty remains to be seen.

Poverty has been defined by the United Nations as "lack of income and productive

resources to ensure sustainable livelihoods; hunger and malnutrition; ill health; limited

or lack of access to education and other basic services; increased morbidity and mortality

from illness; homelessness and inadequate housing; unsafe environments and social

discrimination and exclusion. It is also characterized by lack of participation in

decision- making and in civil, social and cultural life. It occurs in all countries: as mass

poverty in many developing countries, pockets of poverty amid wealth in developed

countries, loss of livelihoods as a result of economic recession, sudden poverty as a result

of disaster or conflict, the poverty of low-wage workers, and the utter destitution of

people who fall outside family support systems, social institutions and safety nets.”

Absolute poverty is defined as "a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic

human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter,

education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to

services."

Poverty is often addressed within the context of social policy, development and

growth. However, the desire for developing countries, such as Egypt, to modernize and

integrate into the liberal international economic and political system has come at a high

social cost, reflecting some of the complex relationships between the politics of poverty,

inequality, development, and the role of the state. It has become increasingly relevant to

examine the responsibility and attitudes of the state, particularly in terms of reform,

distribution and development and the subsequent impact on poverty, welfare, and society.

This first chapter aims to achieve a broader and more conceptual understanding of

poverty, what it means, and how it is measured. It will address some of the theoretical and

methodological problems associated with measuring, evaluating and qualifying poverty,

the difficulties associated with indicating welfare, as well as alternative ways to represent

impoverishment. In order to understand how the state identifies and addresses the needs

and rights of the ultra poor, one must first look at how poverty is quantified. This includes

examining how poverty is defined and how it is addressed in the context of the state.

Analyzing the dynamics of poverty helps to understand some of the broader issues

concerning the role of state in development and poverty alleviation polices. It is also

important to note the evolution of thought in poverty definitions and analysis, from some

of the more orthodox and traditional schools of thought to the more comprehensive,

multidimensional treatment of poverty. These different schools of thought are important

in understanding policy objectives and in targeting the government’s welfare and poverty

reduction programs.

This chapter will also address the criteria used to quantify impoverishment

through indicators, thresholds, and poverty lines. It will also address limits within these

arguments and contemporary alternative discourses. Second, it will expand on the

characteristics of poverty such as the depth, severity, and vulnerability. Third, it will

address issues in the interpretation, perception, and subjectivity of poverty. The second

part of this chapter will look at impoverishment in Egypt as well as current research and

methodologies used to indicate and understand the process of poverty.

Quantifying Poverty

Understanding the different meanings of poverty is important for several reasons.

First, quantifying poverty provides a practical way to consider and target a very real

problem facing the world’s population. Second, it influences policy makers and global

actors to acknowledge and include the well-being, social circumstances, and living

conditions of poverty stricken populations in their agendas. Third, welfare analysis allows

for a better understanding of the causes of poverty, methods to remedy the situation, and

ways to prevent a further rise in the levels of poverty. With proper analysis, programs to

remedy the situation and ways to prevent a further rise in the levels of poverty can be

affected. Finally, understanding the different patterns, causes, and dynamics of poverty

facilitate in finding a solution to this serious global problem.

In poverty research, the terms poverty, welfare, well-being, and material

deprivation are often defined in terms of a practical, testable measure. For example,

measures such as income or consumption are based on particular criteria, such as

minimum living standards. This criterion measure is then compared to an identified

threshold scale in order to define, indicate, and measure the term. Once an indicator is

chosen and defined, a poverty threshold or poverty line can be drawn. From there, one

can both theoretically and operationally quantify and measure “poverty” by those who fall

below or above this line.

One basic way to measure poverty is to ask whether an individual or household is

capable of achieving a basic minimal standard of living. Those that cannot attain this

standard can be quantified as “poor” and their lifestyle can be defined as “one of

poverty.” While there is considerable debate on how to measure this minimum standard,

the question provides a simple way to conceptualize the fundamental principles of

personal or household welfare.

Indicating Poverty: Income

Economist A. B. Atkinson’s contribution to poverty analysis and research focuses

primarily on levels of income and its distribution. According to Atkinson, poverty can

ultimately be understood in terms of income. After all, income has historically been the

one of the most common methods to indicate poverty. Both tangible conditions, such as

the ability to provide basic necessities such food, nutrition, education, and healthcare,

along with intangible conditions, such as participation in a society, social mobility,

freedom, and other basic liberties, are intimately related to a specific level of income.14

Therefore, income indicators often provide useful measurement criteria for understanding

poverty.

A poverty line is then drawn according to those that qualify as having enough

income to secure their basic necessities, both tangible and intangible, compared with

those who do not. Income generated poverty lines are traditionally measured and

analyzed within these main categories or, in more comprehensive analyses, quantified

accordingly to measure groups that cluster around the income poverty threshold.

Income is dependent on several factors—wage and income rates differ in terms of

society, culture, geography and economics. These factors are either misrepresented or

overlooked when income is used as an isolated poverty indicator. Furthermore, income

minimums in developing countries differ from minimums in advanced countries, and

rural income indicators differ from urban income indicators. Even if income related data

could be measured clearly or easily, it is not easily obtained. Individuals are often

reluctant to share their personal income data due to the sensitive nature of personal

finance. Therefore, there are difficulties in obtaining complete and accurate data. Strict

income indicators also present difficulties in interpretation. Income measured per capita,

that is, per individual, can differ drastically from income measured per household. It also

does not account for obvious fluctuations in information and might not accurately

represent the total picture. For example, some household annual incomes tend to

fluctuate, subject to external shocks such as changes in jobs, pay rates, seasonal wages,

etc. A family might also borrow money or use savings in order to meet their monetary

needs and this would not be reflected in standard income measurement. Since monetary

indicators would not be able to report such information, there would be a

misrepresentative interpretation of actual income levels. Modern methodologies however

have begun to utilize income in conjunction with other supplemental welfare indicators to

add to a more comprehensive profile of poverty.

Also, strict income indicators often do not account for mutual support

mechanisms, such as a farm, factory, or other household productions. For example, a

farmer has potential access to some basic commodities from farming, such as food,

shelter, and water, but may not necessarily meet the minimum level of income to sustain

the perceived standard of welfare. Income does have to play a part at some point in

mutual support mechanisms because it takes money to maintain a functional farm. But

this still does not take into account other problematic factors, such as the value of farm

assets or the changes in value of animals or crops.

Atkinson’s argument for income measurement in poverty analysis is restrictive:

income alone is insufficient. Although using a fixed income line is inaccurate, it is often

used in poverty measurement. This is exemplified by the popular use of standard

international poverty lines, based on income, typically designated at the corresponding

value of $1 or 2$ a day. These poverty lines represent income thresholds to measure the

minimum level necessary for basic human needs. They are based on the value of the US

dollar purchasing power parity to compare the living standards or use of resources across

different countries. Its value is based on the measure of commodities and services in a

country, derived from their equivalent in the United States. Although this international

standard is often used, it is severely limiting and accounts for some of the distorted and

incomplete conclusions about poverty. For example, the value of one dollar in the United

States means something quite different than the value of one dollar in Egypt. If the

poverty line was raised to $1.25, the number of people qualified as living in poverty in

Egypt would probably rise even though they may not be in actual poverty. An increase of

a seemingly marginal amount, such as from $1.00 to $1.25, could have a powerful impact

in a country such as Egypt. An extra 91 dollars (annually) represents a higher poverty line

for Egypt; whereas an average American would not consider the increase as a vast

difference in income. But in Egypt, any person who struggles to meet their basic needs,

whether on $1 or $1.25, should realistically qualify as living in poverty. This

demonstrates that poverty measures contingent on income is a highly relative method for

analyzing welfare. These results make income measurement contentious and often

misrepresentative in poverty analysis. Income measurement, while valuable in addition

and compared with other poverty data measurement, is unrealistic and methodologically

uncertain.

Furthermore, a minimum income is not universally agreed upon by any

predetermined standard and is subject to cultural, social, economic, and political relativity

as costs and prices differ. This is further illustrated in changes in level-based analysis

when examining fluctuations in income requirements, which have the potential to adjust

at international, regional, urban, rural, and local levels.

Indicating Poverty:

Expenditure and Consumption Poverty Measures

Another commonly used welfare indicator is derived from expenditure and consumption

patterns aggregated at a household level. This method often appears to be more accurate

and less sensitive to fluctuations than income measurements. Also, research has

demonstrated that people are more likely to disclose data about personal expenditure and

consumption rather than private cash income wage and earnings. However, when

compared to income measurement, the minimum consumption level is subject to

individual preferences of what constitutes basic food and non-food consumption. “While

it is clear that every individual values food consumption, one need not believe that

individuals are themselves good judges of the importance of nutrition to well-being.”

Similar to income indicators, consumption based data is still a monetary measurement of

poverty. There is also an issue with the accuracy of the data collected because people tend

to understate their expenditure on commodities, particularly if the commodity is a luxury

or illegal.

Another method to measure poverty can be a food basket, a device consisting of

the necessary nutrition values purchased at local and individual prices. Food baskets are

determined by the minimum caloric intake of for certain brackets of individuals, using

determinates such as age, location, occupation, and gender. These baskets establish the

minimum number of calories for individuals, in addition to the cost for obtaining the food

bundle. Different levels of consumption based on demography as well as regional specific

food baskets are taken into consideration to establish the most appropriate food basket for

the individual. Proportionate to food bundles are the nonfood bundles, which are based on

nonfood consumption levels of poor households. According to the EIHS, poor households

spend up to 42% of their income on nonfood requirements. “The reference food bundle

includes 184 foods, allowing more than 410 grams of food-grains per person per day…”

Food bundles are useful for determining specific consumption based poverty lines.

Their strength lies in the idea that consumption, especially of the basic necessity of food

itself, is the greatest indicator of poverty. This measurement of minimum caloric intake as

well as the access and availability of food to the poor treats poverty as a function of

nutrition, where poverty is directly contingent to hunger and vice versa. Yet using food

baskets as poverty indicators are weak because they limit poverty to a tangible

consumption value. Other elements such as human capital and development assets such

as health, education, or the rights and entitlements of the poor are not represented.

Other Indicators of Poverty

Other indicators of welfare can be based on nutrition or food poverty lines. In this

case, food is seen as the ultimate necessity for living because it is the most fundamental

need for basic human survival. Research and statistics show that in low-income

households, food accounts for the majority of total consumption expenditure. A

combination of food expenditure and consumption, along with nutrition status such as

calorie consumption for an individual or total household, can provide a more accurate

method of welfare measurement.

The food poverty line is a food bundle chosen with a particular predetermined calorie

requirement with a composition that is consistent with the choices of low-income

households. It is defined for individuals in different age brackets, gender, and activity

levels and then combined using the varying prices for food in each region. Households

whose expenditure is below FPL are referred to as extreme poor.

There is also difficulty with this kind of measurement. The definitions and

methodologies used for measurement create substantial differences in the result, making

the conclusions relative to individual taste. How exactly is the composition of a basic

diet, which is needed for either survival or achievement of a basic standard of living,

determined? It would be exceedingly subjective to have to account for every level of

preference. These measurements would differ not only from individual to household, but

also differ in terms of personal preferences, geography, and the relative prices of local

food. Problems also arise when considering consumption differences based on age,

gender, or occupation. The consumption rate of a small child will be quite different than

an adult; the consumption rate of a female would be different than that of a male; and the

consumption rate of someone who works in a low physical activity job will be different

from a farmhand. So there are different food requirements that can fulfill daily nutritional

minimums.

Also, food and nutritional levels are affected by income. A family with a steady

income would conceivably have a regular rate of consumption. However, a household

without a steady income could possibly have the same consumption rate because they are

either tapping into household savings or investments or using credit. Similar to income-

based poverty lines, this measurement of economic well-being can be

misrepresentative.

Thresholds and Poverty Lines

One method of understanding poverty lines is in terms of absolute and relative

measurement. An absolute poverty line has a threshold that is measured by an external,

predetermined standard of living, for example, the real cost of basic food and nonfood

requirements per person. People would categorically fall into absolute poverty when they

live below this threshold, that is when either an individual or a household cannot provide

the basic requirements for a good quality of life.

Relative poverty lines look at the average household within different groups in

society. The measurement of relative poverty takes into account threshold variance based

on other factors that would influence the outcome, such as geographical disparity,

different conceptions of minimum standards, inequality, and demographic differentiation.

However, relative poverty lines can seem misleading. They are comparatively quantified

within a specific group.30 Take for example a wealthy country with an average household

income of $100,000 annually. In this case, even those who fall below the relative

threshold would still presumably have the capacity to provide for their most basic needs.

The relative measure uses the lowest quadrants of a given society as the threshold for

poverty. Thus, in the wealthy country case, those in the bottom strata would qualify as

relatively poor even if they have the ability to provide for their basic needs.

A different poverty threshold can be determined by subjective poverty lines, which

depend on the personal judgment of an individual or household’s standard of living. The

benefit of this threshold is that it identifies poverty measurement as an intrinsically

deduced judgment by a person of what is acceptable as minimum living standard. It is

more dependent on personal perception and considerations by the population which is

being measured. But this measurement can also be problematic as it is inherently subject

to individual preferences of basic needs. These preferences are dynamic and differ based

on relative criteria, such as individual taste, location, gender, occupation, price variation,

etc.

An example of subjective poverty analysis is demonstrated in Pradhan and

Ravallion’s methodology for qualitative perceptions of welfare. While traditional poverty

lines come with a predetermined set of nutritional or income related requirements for

basic economic welfare measurement, this model uses a subjective poverty line. It is

derived from qualitative assessments of perceived consumption and taken from household

surveys. This connection is then constructed accordingly to demonstrate a certain amount

of income/consumption/nutrition needed to achieve the pre-determined requirements.

What determines “the poor” is evaluated by households whose welfare indicators fall

below the constructed line. Subjective poverty lines, for example, would measure poverty

based on specific poverty trends. It would be beneficial to break down this line further

into categories, such as rural/urban demographics, family size, and location, among other

determinants of poverty. While this would be more accurate, Ravallion looks at current

consumption patterns rather than a minimum income, which makes poverty profiling

slightly more subjective and specific.

But the problem with this method is that it again is subject to personal

interpretation of minimum welfare and basic needs. Ravallion and Pradhan note the

importance of such social specificity related to poverty lines, especially in regard to basic

needs and nutritional requirements. Yet to what extent does social specificity need to be

broken down in order to create and analyze some sort of formal measurement standard?

There must be some definitive point in which the difference between the essential and the

nonessential can no longer be subject to interpretation. After all, at the extreme end, a

starving child is a starving child regardless of culture, location, gender, or environment.

Subjectivity must take into account the natural shifts which occur over time as a

result of as economic, political and social changes. This presents problems in accuracy

and quantitative poverty measurements. Furthermore, other factors that influence poverty

and welfare measurements are demographically related such as family size and

composition.

One can easily see how observation and analysis within conventional poverty line based

frameworks are weak at best. Some poverty lines fail to take into account the dynamic

factors of welfare analysis such as the individuality and subjectivity of measurement,

demographic and economic variations, and inaccuracy in acquiring quality and uniform

data. These issues not only fluctuate in terms of measurement, but can also have a great

impact on the outcome. The subsequent analysis and assessment recommendations by

faulty conclusions are used as incontrovertible evidence. It has become increasingly

important to not only realize these issues in poverty assessment, but to utilize this

information in a collaborative effort to understand the multidimensional causes and

effects of poverty.

Other Approaches: Capability, Entitlement, and Function

Welfare economist Amartya Sen laid the groundwork for multidimensional

poverty research that sought to remedy the limits associated with conventional

assessments mentioned earlier. Poverty measurement traditionally included counting the

number of poor, using that number in relation to total population and generating a poverty

percentage. This method attempts to target and measure poverty as a fixed entity—

defined only in terms of income for example—rather than a complex and dynamic

phenomenon.

Sen’s method for determining poverty composition has two requirements. First,

there has to be a method of identifying a particular group or individual as “poor.” Only

then can a method of aggregating the structure and makeup of this group be used in order

to provide an overall understanding of poverty.

Although this may sound simple enough, it is not. Similar issues arise when trying

to indicate “poorness.” How do you measure exactly what is poor? Should the

identification be used strictly in terms of consumption norms? Should a poverty line be

used to discern between groups? Do you consider changes in income? What happens if

everyone in the measurement is above a poverty line, but you are just measuring the

lower quadrant? Are they in true poverty or not? All of these poverty measures are

problematic. As explained before, poverty can be interpreted in different ways. The

problem lies in using only consumption, income, or expenditure as a uniform gauge for

measuring poverty and understanding its causes. Sen sought to expand on poverty

analysis by including new indicators. His capability framework concentrates on the

options and limitations of preferences available to a person, rather than their behavior or

choices. Because there are a variety of material and immaterial capabilities that can be

used in this type of analysis, the case for this multivariate approach becomes stronger and