Setting ‘poverty thresholds’: whose experience counts?

Abstract

According to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), poverty eradication in the 21st century means everyday access to decent health care, education and livelihoods, political participation, social inclusion, a clean and safe environment, and more. These are aspirational goals that together support a decent quality of life. Crossing monetary, 'poverty thresholds' may enable such goals. Most estimates of 'where' the monetary threshold lies derive the estimates circularly from monetary costs of living. The link to quality of living is thereby made by fiat, untested empirically in everyday human experience. We already know we can measure income independently of middle class quality of life, and probe for relationships between the two. Why not for poverty too? A quantity of money where quality of life changed would mark a genuine threshold required for example to escape from poverty traps. Using this approach, studies in quality of work-life, using multiple indicators, have identified at least three thresholds where quality of life ticked markedly upwards, including inter-threshold ranges where gradients went from zero to positive. The concept of work-life balance suggests that this approach may be usefully extended to include quality health care, education, and other SDGs in sustainability science. Keywords SDG1 • Eradicating poverty • Measuring poverty • Evaluation A problem statement Policy makers around the world rely on poverty thresholds to make, evaluate and improve their anti-poverty initiatives. These thresholds are important because they yield higher or lower estimates of poverty levels, levels of intervention and their evaluation (Bullock 2019). The thresholds themselves are normally calculated from periodically updated costs-ofliving surveys, and associated indexes. They are circularly econometric. Drawing various poverty thresholds at $1.90 or $3.20 a day, monthly wage, or 60% of median national income, and so on, then takes a complete leap of faith into people's actual, everyday quality of life:

What does gross national happiness really measure? An immersive observation in Lamshey, Bhutan

“…This quantitative work has been mobilized in the scientific literature. Work has linked the measurement of happiness with themes such as health (T. Dorji, 2021;Pennock & Ura, 2011;Tobgay & al., 2011), education (Schuelka et al, 2021;Sherab et al, 2014;Thinley, 2016), spirituality (Basu & Miroshnik, 2021;Gupta & Agrawal, 2017) and poverty (Alkire & Santos, 2008;Carr, 2021;See, 2021). By refuting the Gross Domestic Product as the only legitimate macroeconomic indicator (Thiry, 2011), the GNH has also been presented as a new economic paradigm in which the growth of monetary and material wealth is abandoned in favor of environmental, social, and ultimately human wealth (Cassiers, 2018;Cavalletti & Corsi, 2018;Cheptea, 2016;Colman, 2021a).…”

“…(Yuden leaves…)" The issue of living conditions is the most studied in the scientific literature on Bhutan (Carr, 2021;See, 2021). First, the origin of the GNH calculation is closely related to the Alkire-Foster (2011) method of multidimensional poverty calculation.…”

Fitting Social Enterprise for Sustainable Development in Vietnam

“…Creating such sustainable and productive livelihoods not only ensures the inclusion of marginalized groups in economic life, but can also lift them and their families out of poverty traps [68]. The consequences of such strategic leadership [66] extends beyond issues of fair pay to the provision of accommodation and food, and access to healthcare and related benefits.…”