Is the Debate on Poverty Research a Global One? A Consideration of the Exclusion of Odera Oruka’s ‘Human Minimum’ as a Case of Epistemic Injustice

Chimakonam, Jonathan O.

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-31711-9_6

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the view put forward by Dübgen (2020), academic discourses on poverty are characterized by power imbalances and the ignorance, silencing or marginalization of voices from the Global South. Likewise, Chimakonam (2020, p. 98) criticizes that the Global North “controls knowledge production and dissemination virtually in exclusion of perspectives from the Global South” (p. 100). Contrary to claims that economics is a non‐hierarchical field where the quality of the argument matters (Rodrik, 2015), Dübgen argues that academic voices are considered more or less trustworthy depending on their gender, race, or class.…”

Section: Epistemic Injusticesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Poverty Research and its Discontents: Review and Discussion of Issues Raised in Dimensions of Poverty. Measurement, Epistemic Injustices and Social Activism(Beck, V., H.Hahn, and R.Lepenies eds., Springer, Cham, 2020)

Flechtner

2021

Review of Income and Wealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Edited volumes have low prestige in economics. Fortunately, the anthology Dimensions of Poverty. Measurement, Epistemic Injustices and Social Activism, compiled by Valentin Beck, Henning Hahn, and Robert Lepenies (2020), proves that edited volumes can be more than a loose collection of chapters unworthy of becoming journal articles. The editors have produced an important collection of 20 chapters around the conceptualization, understanding, and measurement of poverty, which brings together debates from economics, philosophy, political science, public policy, and sociology. The outcome is more than simply the sum of its parts: there is something to be learned both from individual chapters and, specially, from their cross-fertilization.The volume is concerned with the conceptualization and measurement of poverty. Yet, this topic is placed within the context of two other important and timely debates (see Figure 1). First, the volume establishes a link between the quality of poverty research and the perspectives that feed into it. A central theme here is epistemic injustice following Fricker (2007): it is argued that Global South perspectives are often undervalued or outright ignored. This is at the detriment of research quality because, in the view proposed, poverty research must carefully consider particular societal contexts. Hence the inclusion of scholars from diverse backgrounds and with society-specific knowledge "is not only a question of fairness (…) but also highly instructive" (Beck et al., 2020, p. 11). Various contributions also emphasize the importance of the views of those who live in poverty themselves, as well as of those who work in policy-making and poverty reduction outside academia. Second, the volume discusses how the way in which academics conceptualize, define, understand, and measure poverty has important implications for the actual lives of people living in poverty. In the words of one contributor, "[c]onceptual issues are not merely abstract and fringe discussions; they have an impact and influence on how reality is perceived, how it is shaped and how it should be changed. Concepts drive actions" (Schweiger, 2020, p. 163).On the topic of poverty, the anthology brings good and bad news. The bad news first: there will never be a definitive answer to the question of how to conceptualize or measure poverty, and we will never be done researching poverty. There are too many dimensions to poverty, too many normative judgments to be

show abstract

Section: Epistemic Injusticesmentioning

confidence: 99%