Skip to main content

Comparing measures of poverty and relative deprivation

An example for Belgium

Abstract

This paper presents three different poverty standards. A first approach takes the disposable income as an indicator of poverty. A second approach uses the Leyden approach. Finally an aggregate index of deprivation, based on the observation of consumption events, is constructed through a particular econometric procedure proposed by Desai and Shah (1988). These alternative measures are then compared on a sample composed of 6380 Belgian households. Such an analysis can be expected to provide some further insight into the problem of measuring poverty, which has been the subject of a recent controversial debate.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Deleeck H, Cantillon B, de Lathouwer L, Van den Bosch K, Wyns M (1986) Indicateurs de la sécurité sociale 1976–1985. Rev Bel Sec Soc, Annexe au no 4–5

  • Deleeck H, Van den Bosch K (1990) The measurement of poverty in a comparative context: Empirical evidence and methodological evaluation of four poverty lines in seven EC countries. In: Teekens R, Van Praag BMS (eds) Analysing poverty in the European Community, policy issues, research options and data sources. Eurostat, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Desai M, Shah A (1988) An econometric approach to the measurement of poverty. Oxford Econ Pap 40:505–522

    Google Scholar 

  • Flik R, Van Praag B (1991) Subjective poverty line definitions. Economist 139(3):311–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Goedhart T, Halberstadt V, Kapteyn A, Van Praag B (1977) The poverty line: concept and measurement. J Hum Resources 12:503–520

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagenaars A (ed) (1986) The perception of poverty. North-Holland, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagenaars A, De Vos K (1988) The definition and measurement of poverty. J Hum Resources 23:139–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Modigliani F, Brumberg R (1954) Utility analysis and the consumption function: an interpretation of cross-section data. In: Kurihara K (ed) Post-Keynesian economics. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (1989) National Accounts, Volume I. Paris

  • Townsend P (1979) Poverty in the United Kingdom. Penguin, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Townsend P, Gordon D (1989) What is enough? New evidence allowing the definition of a minimum benefit. Conference on “Income and Material Well Being”, Luxembourg Income Study. Luxembourg, July 9–12 1989

  • Van Praag B (1971) The welfare function of income in Belgium: an empirical investigation. Eur Econ Rev 2:337–369

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Praag B, Van der Sar N (1988) Empirical uses of subjective measures of well-being: household cost functions and equivalence scales. J Hum Resources 23:193–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Zellner A (1963) Estimators for seemingly unrelated regressions equations: some exact finite sample results. J Am Stat Assoc 48:977–992

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

We thank the participants of the Second Annual Meeting of the European Society for Population Economics, June 23–25, 1988, Mannheim (FRG), L. Gevers, J. Lindsey, P. Pestieau, B. Sak, K. Van den Bosch and two anonymous referees for their comments and suggestions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Delhausse, B., Luttgens, A. & Perelman, S. Comparing measures of poverty and relative deprivation. J Popul Econ 6, 83–102 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00164340

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00164340

Keywords

  • Alternative Measure
  • Disposable Income
  • Relative Deprivation
  • Aggregate Index
  • Controversial Debate