Social Indicators Research

, Volume 102, Issue 3, pp 537–556 | Cite as

Subjective Poverty and Its Relation to Objective Poverty Concepts in Hungary

Article

Abstract

The paper analyzes subjective poverty in Hungary and compares it to the objective poverty concepts. Subjective poverty is defined by examining who people consider to be poor. Based on the Easterlin paradox, the initial hypothesis states that subjective and absolute poverty concepts are highly correlated. Taking into account that Hungary is a developed country, subjective well-being is supposed to be associated not only with absolute, but also with relative deprivation. The methods of systematic data collection are used to collect data about the belief of the population. The paper concludes that low income level, Roma descent, entitlement to social supports and unemployment are the items thought to be most related to poverty by the informants. It proves that subjective poverty is a multidimensional concept. It also concludes that absolute and relative poverty thresholds coincide with the subjective one. It implies that increasing the absolute income level of individuals may not be enough to improve their subjective wellbeing as they are also concerned with their relative income position.

Keywords

Poverty Systematic data collection Hungary Subjective poverty Objective poverty 

References

  1. Agell, J., & Lundborg, P. (2003). Survey evidence on wage rigidity and unemployment: Sweden in the 1990s. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 105, 15–30.Google Scholar
  2. Alam, A. M., Yemtsov, R., et al. (2005). Growth, poverty and inequality: Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. Washington DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  3. Basmann, R. L., Molina, D. J., & Slottje, D. J. (1988). A note on measuring Veblen’s theory of conspicuous consumption. Review of Economics and Statistics, 70, 531–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boster, J. S. (1983). Requiem for the omniscient informant: There’s life in the old girl yet. In J. Dougherty (Ed.), Directions in cognitive anthropology. Hillsdale, NJ: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  5. Carlsson, F., Johansson-Stenman, O., & Martinsson, P. (2007). Do you enjoy having more than others? Survey evidence of positional goods. Economica, 74, 586–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Castilla, C. (2009). Objective versus subjective poverty: Are income positional concerns influencing subjective poverty assessments? Midwest international economic development conference, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, A. E., Frijters, P., & Shields, M. (2008). Relative income, happiness and utility: an explanation for the Easterlin Paradox and other puzzles. Journal of Economic Literature, 46, 95–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Munck, V. C., & Sobo, E. J. (1998). Using methods in the field: A practical introduction and casebook. Walnut Creek (CA), London, New Delhi: Altamira Press, A Division of Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Easterlin, R. A. (1995). Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organisation, 27, 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fafchamps, M., & Shilpi, F. (2008). Subjective welfare, isolation, and relative consumption. Journal of Development Economics, 86, 43–60.Google Scholar
  11. Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2002). What can economists learn from happiness research? Journal of Economic Literature, 40, 402–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hegedűs, P., & Monostori, J. (2005). A szegénység és a társadalmi kirekesztődés mérőszámai 2005, Elméleti megalapozás. Budapest: KSH Népességtudományi Kutató Intézet.Google Scholar
  13. Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65, 19–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johansson-Stenman, O., & Martinsson, P. (2006). Honestly, why are you driving a BMW? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 60, 129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Laeken indicators—Detailed calculation methodology (2003). Statistics on income, poverty and social exclusion. European Commission, Eurostat, Working Group.Google Scholar
  16. Layard, R. (2002). Rethinking public economics: Implications of rivalry and habit. (mimeograph).Google Scholar
  17. Létminimum 2007. (2008). Budapest: Központi Statisztikai Hivatal.Google Scholar
  18. Luttmer, E. F. P. (2005). Neighbors as negatives: relative earnings and well-being. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120, 963–1002.Google Scholar
  19. Maxfield, M. G., & Babbie, E. (2009). Basics of research methods for criminal justice and criminology (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  20. Neumark, D., & Postlewait, A. (1998). Relative income concerns and the rise in married women’s employment. Journal of Public Economics, 70, 157–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nunally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  22. Ravallion, M., & Lokshin, M. (2002). Self-rated economic welfare in Russia. European Economic Review, 46, 1453–1473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Roberts, J. M. (1964). The self-management of cultures. In W. H. Goodenough (Ed.), Explorations in cultural anthropology (pp. 433–454). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  24. Romney, A. K., Weller, S. C., & Batchelder, W. H. (1986). Culture as consensus: A theory of culture and informant accuracy. American Anthropologist, New Series, 88, 313–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Samman, E. (2007). Psychological and subjective well-being: A proposal for internationally comparable indicators. Oxford Development Studies, 35, 459–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Spéder, Z. S. (2002). A szegénység változó arcai: Tények és értelmezések. Budapest: Andorka Rudolf Társadalomtudományi Társaság; Századvég.Google Scholar
  27. Vajda, Z. S. (1999). Somlai Péter: Szocializáció. Szociológiai Szemle, 2, 166.Google Scholar
  28. Van Praag, B. M. S. (1971). The welfare function of income in Belgium: An empirical investigation. European Economic Review, 2, 337–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Weller, S. C. (1984). Consistency and consensus among informants: Disease concepts in a rural Mexican village. American Anthropologist, 86, 966–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Weller, S. C. (2007). Cultural consensus theory: Applications and frequently asked questions. Field Methods, 19, 339–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Weller, S. C., & Romney, A. K. (1988). Systematic data collection. Qualitative research methods (Vol. 10). Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  32. Hungarian Census database. www.nepszamlalas.hu.
  33. Hungarian Central Statistical Office website. www.ksh.hu.
  34. Hungarian National Bank website. www.mnb.hu.
  35. 7 § 224/2006 (XI. 20.) Governmental regulation and 6 § of 329/2006. (XII. 23.) governmental regulation Act III of 1993 in Hungary on Social Administration and Social Transfers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MiskolcMiskolcHungary

Personalised recommendations