Measuring poverty is a complex and challenging task, as it involves understanding the multifaceted nature of deprivation. In the past, poverty was often measured solely based on minimum income, but this approach proved inadequate in capturing the true reality of poverty. The capability approach emerged as an alternative to address this limitation, leading to the development of the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI). The MPI tracks deprivation across three dimensions and ten indicators: health (child mortality, nutrition), education (years of schooling, enrollment), and living standards (water, sanitation, electricity, cooking fuel, floor, assets) (SDSN, 2015, p. 143). By considering these multiple dimensions, the MPI provides a more comprehensive picture of poverty, classifying who is poor and how they experience various disadvantages. The MPI value combines information on different deprivations into a single number, calculated by multiplying the poverty headcount by the intensity of poverty, which represents the weighted average number of deprivations experienced by poor individuals simultaneously (UNDP, 2020, p. 117).
Amartya Sen, a Nobel laureate in economics, introduced the concept of capabilities as a way to evaluate human well-being beyond mere income or utility. According to Sen, people's capabilities refer to the substantive freedoms they have to lead lives they have reason to value. Capabilities include a range of opportunities and abilities, such as access to education, healthcare, and political participation. Sen argues that evaluating poverty solely based on income fails to capture the multidimensional nature of deprivation and restricts our understanding of poverty. He distinguishes between functioning and capabilities. Functionings refer to actual activities and achievements, while capabilities encompass the freedom and effective access to perform those functionings (Robeyns, 2005, p. 93). For instance, being in good health represents a functioning, while having access and freedom to pursue education or work demonstrates capabilities.
In my view, the conventional measurement of poverty solely based on income is a flawed concept that overlooks the diverse aspects of human well-being. Income-centric evaluations fail to consider the nuanced and multifaceted nature of poverty, particularly in the context of rural farmers, women, and tribal communities. For many individuals engaged in farming in rural areas, their way of life extends beyond monetary transactions. These communities often live sustainably, relying on nature for their livelihoods without engaging in buying or selling activities. Consequently, traditional poverty measures fail to capture the essence of their unique lifestyles, dismissing them as impoverished simply due to a lack of monetary income. Even alternative indices like the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) fall short in accurately representing the needs of rural farmers and marginalized groups. While MPI aims to incorporate various dimensions of poverty, it may still be insufficient in capturing the holistic well-being of those deeply connected to nature.
Poverty is, in particular, a matter of perspective. In someone's eyes, I may be deemed poor, and from my standpoint, someone else might be considered impoverished. However, we might be content with what we have, leading rich and happy lives. In fact, I am dissatisfied with the study of all the poverty measurement theories. Personally, I believe that measuring happiness or satisfaction, instead of poverty, would be more practical. To illustrate my point, let me provide an example from my village Alkatar, Nepal.
In examining various poverty theories, I observed a consistent focus on issues such as insufficient income, lack of education, inadequate living standards, and poor work quality. Research has predominantly revolved around these aspects. Now, let me share the real story of my village "Alkatar". Each resident possesses a small piece of fertile land, and most are engaged in traditional agriculture. The villagers choose not to send their children to school, so that they can work on farm, relying on locally produced fresh and organic vegetables, fruits, milk, and grains. Their regular agricultural activities and consumption of fresh, local food contribute to their good health. If they fall ill, they prefer herbal remedies over modern medicine, avoiding potential side effects. Their buying habits are limited to acquiring new clothes once a year during a special festival, and they are self-sufficient, not participating in the capitalist economic system. In fact, they are not buying and selling anything.
Despite not generating income in the conventional sense, the villagers of Alkatar lead happy and healthy lives, with many living beyond 90 years. Farming, in their eyes, is a noble profession, in fact farming for them is a way of life. As even with all the modern comforts invented by science, at the end what they have to eat to survive is a food. Regrettably, according to prevailing poverty theories, these villagers would be categorized as poor. But if they are happily living for more than 90 years, can they truly be considered poor? In my views, they are the most rich people of the earth.
References:
Robeyns, I. (2005). The Capability Approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 93–104.
SDSN. (2015). Multidimensional Poverty Index. In Indicators and a Monitoring Framework for Sustainable Development Goals: Launching a data revolution for the SDGs (p. 233). Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
UNDP. (2020). Multidimensional Poverty Index. In Human Development Reports (p. 211). United Nations Development Programme.
