DOCSLIB.ORG

Indicators of Gender Equality

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Indicators of Gender Equality UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE Conference of European Statisticians Task Force on Indicators of Gender Equality Indicators of Gender Equality Draft, 7 January 2014 The Bureau of the Conference of European Statisticians (CES) reviewed the draft report “Indicators of gender equality” at its October 2013 meeting and requested the secretariat to circulate it for a broad consultation to all countries and international organizations who participate in the work of CES. Please send your feedback and comments on the draft report by 28 February 2014 to Andres Vikat ([email protected]) and Christopher Jones ([email protected]). Please structure your comments as follows: general comments; comments on the structure of the report; comments on the proposed indicators (chapter 2 and annex A); comments on proposals for further work (chapter 3). The secretariat will summarise the comments and present them at the UNECE Work Session on Gender Statistics (Geneva, 19-21 March) and subsequently at the CES plenary session (Paris, 9-11 April). Subject to a positive outcome of the consultation, the report will be submitted to the 2014 CES plenary session for endorsement. Acknowledgement The present report is prepared by the UNECE Task Force on Indicators of Gender Equality, which consisted of the following members: Cristina Freguja (Istat, Italy, Chair of the Task Force), Dean Adams and Rajni Madan (Australian Bureau of Statistics), Yafit Alfandari (Central Bureau of Statistics, Israel), Sara Demofonti, Lidia Gargiulo, Paola Ungaro and Maria Giuseppina Muratore (Istat, Italy), Marion van den Brakel (Statistics Netherlands), Maria José Carrilho (Statistics Portugal), Teresa Escudero (National Statistics Institute, Spain), Karen Hurrell (Equality and Human Rights Commission, United Kingdom), Ilze Burkevica, Ligia Nobrega and Anna Rita Manca (European Institute for Gender Equality), Piotr Ronkowski and Sabine Gagel (Eurostat), Adriana Mata Greenwood (ILO), Andres Vikat, Christopher Jones and Mihaela Darii-Sposato (UNECE). The report has been discussed and agreed by the entire Task Force. Some organizations took the primary responsibility of drafting certain chapters, as follows: Statistics Netherlands – Poverty National Statistics Institute, Spain – Education Australian Bureau of Statistics – Health Istat, Italy – Violence Central Bureau of Statistics, Israel and UNECE – Economy UNECE – Power and decision-making, Media, Childhood and adolescents Statistics Portugal – Human rights European Institute for Gender Equality – Environment Eurostat – Demographic background Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Background and objective ........................................................................................... 5 1.2 Framework ................................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Selection criteria .......................................................................................................... 6 1.4 Domains ....................................................................................................................... 6 1.5 Outline ......................................................................................................................... 7 2 Summary of Proposed Indicators .............................................................................. 9 3 Issues Requiring Further Work ................................................................................ 16 3.1 Proposals for enhancing the UNECE Gender Statistics Database ............................. 16 3.2 Methodological and data issues ................................................................................ 16 3.2.1 Poverty ........................................................................................................................... 16 3.2.2 Violence .......................................................................................................................... 17 3.2.3 Health ............................................................................................................................. 18 3.2.4 Power and decision-making in society ........................................................................... 18 3.2.5 Power and decision-making in the household ............................................................... 18 3.2.6 Institutional mechanisms for the advancement of gender equality .............................. 19 3.2.7 Media ............................................................................................................................. 19 3.2.8 Children and adolescents ............................................................................................... 19 Annex A : Indicators by Topic ........................................................................................... 20 A.1 Poverty ....................................................................................................................... 20 A.1.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................... 20 A.1.2 Available sources of indicators ....................................................................................... 22 A.1.3 Consideration of poverty indicators by topic ................................................................. 22 A.1.4 Data availability .............................................................................................................. 29 A.1.5 Proposed indicators........................................................................................................ 29 A.2 Education ................................................................................................................... 32 A.2.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................... 32 A.2.2 Available sources of indicators ....................................................................................... 35 A.2.3 Consideration of indicators by topic .............................................................................. 38 A.2.4 Proposed indicators........................................................................................................ 40 A.3 Health ......................................................................................................................... 42 A.3.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................... 42 A.3.2 Available sources of indicators ....................................................................................... 46 A.3.3 Consideration of indicators by topic .............................................................................. 57 A.3.4 Proposed indicators........................................................................................................ 62 A.4 Violence ..................................................................................................................... 64 A.4.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................... 64 A.4.2 Data availability .............................................................................................................. 66 A.4.3 Consideration of indicators by topic .............................................................................. 67 A.4.4 Proposed indicators........................................................................................................ 69 A.5 Economy..................................................................................................................... 72 A.5.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................... 72 A.5.2 Available sources of indicators ....................................................................................... 78 A.5.3 Considerations for indicator choice by topic ................................................................. 79 A.5.4 Proposed indicators........................................................................................................ 83 A.5.5 Variables and classifications ........................................................................................... 86 A.6 Power and decision-making in society ...................................................................... 87 A.6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 87 A.6.2 Available sources of indicators ...................................................................................... 88 A.6.3 Consideration of indicators by topic.............................................................................. 92 A.6.4 Proposed indicators ....................................................................................................... 93 A.7 Power and decision-making in the household .......................................................... 94 A.7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 94 A.7.2 Selecting indicators .......................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Report on Social Vulnerability Indicators Analytical Framework and Methodological Considerations
    gi Report on social vulnerability indicators Analytical framework and methodological considerations Guillaume Jean (UVSQ), Jean-Luc Dubois (IRD) and Isabelle Droy (IRD) 1 This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No. 649447. 2 This report constitutes Deliverable D3.2 for Work Package 3 of the RE-InVEST project. February 2019 © 2019 – RE-INVEST, Rebuilding an Inclusive, Value-based Europe of Solidarity and Trust through Social Investments – project number 649447 General contact: [email protected] p.a. RE-InVEST HIVA - Research Institute for Work and Society Parkstraat 47 box 5300, 3000 Leuven, Belgium For more information [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Please refer to this publication as follows: Jean G., Dubois J.-L. and Droy I. (2019). Report on Social Vulnerability Indicators. Analytical Framework and Methodological Considerations. RE-InVEST report, Paris: IRD. This publication is also available at http://www.re-invest.eu/ This publication is part of the RE-InVEST project. This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No 649447. The information and views set out in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Neither the European Union institutions and bodies nor any person acting on their behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. Executive summary This report was written for the RE-InVEST project – Rebuilding an Inclusive, Value-Based Europe of Solidarity and Trust through Social Investments – part of a European H2020 project designed to evaluate the European Commission’s 2013 social investment strategy and offer new insights to inform public policymaking in response to the social damage done by the crisis.
    [Show full text]
  • Do Current Measures of Social Exclusion Depict the Multidimensional Challenges of Marginalized Urban Areas? Insights, Gaps and Future Research
    International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Review Do Current Measures of Social Exclusion Depict the Multidimensional Challenges of Marginalized Urban Areas? Insights, Gaps and Future Research Rocío Vela-Jiménez and Antonio Sianes * Research Institute on Policies for Social Transformation, Universidad Loyola Andalucía, 41704 Seville, Spain; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +34-61-109-9523 Abstract: According to the United Nations, 70% of the world’s population will live in cities by 2050, increasing the proliferation of areas of social exclusion and thus polarization and segregation. The establishment of multidimensional measures seeks to identify such situations of social exclusion to inform social policies and interventions. However, some concerns emerge: Are these measures catching the needs of people living in particularly disadvantages areas? Do they offer a human- centred approach or a territorial focus? Is the multidimensionality of such measures reflecting nonmaterial aspects such as health, access to liveable environments or political participation? To analyse how the scientific literature is addressing the measurement of social exclusion to tackle such urban challenges, a systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines was performed in the Web Citation: Vela-Jiménez, R.; Sianes, A. of Science database. After screening following the inclusion criteria, 28 studies were identified that Do Current Measures of Social analysed systems of indicators that multidimensionally examined social exclusion at the individual Exclusion Depict the and/or family level in urban contexts. Despite studies being eminently limited to some Western Multidimensional Challenges of Marginalized Urban Areas? Insights, countries, the results revealed a broad diversity. However, very few of them fully focused on the Gaps and Future Research.
    [Show full text]
  • NATIONAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT Capacity Development and Integration with the European Union NATIONAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT
    Albania NATIONAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT capacity development and integration with the european union NATIONAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT Albania – 2010 Capacity Development and Integration with the European Union The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Development Programme. Information contained in this report is not subject to copyright. However, clear acknowledgment and reference to the UNDP Human Development Report 2010 for Albania is required, when using this information. This report is available at www.undp.org.al United Nations Development Programme Tirana, Albania, August 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Forward Remarks by the Minister of European Integration and the UN Resident Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative 3 Acknowledgments 4 Acronyms 5 Executive Summary 6 1.0 INTRODUCTION 15 1.1 Current Situation 15 1.2 Scope of this Report 15 1.3 Methodology 16 1.4 Report Structure 17 2.0 CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT 19 2.1 Capacity Development in a Systems Contex 19 2.2 Is Capacity Development a National Priority? 21 2.3 Capacity Development and EU Integration 26 2.4 Human Development and Social Inclusion 28 3.0 REFORMING PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 31 3.1 Key Dimensions of the Challenge 31 3.2 Albanian Civil Service: the Core Institutional Capacity 34 3.3 Effective Accountability Frameworks 39 3.3.1 Is there such a framework? 39 3.4 Exploiting Information and Communications Technology 44 4.0 SOCIAL INCLUSION 49 4.1 Social Inclusion as a National Priority
    [Show full text]
  • APPROACHES to MEASURING SOCIAL EXCLUSION UNECE Task Force on Measuring Social Exclusion Acknowledgements
    APPROACHES TO MEASURING SOCIAL EXCLUSION UNECE Task Force on Measuring Social Exclusion Acknowledgements This Guide has been prepared by the UNECE Task Force on Measuring Social Exclusion, which consisted of the following members representing national statistical offices, international organizations, and academia: Dr. Dawn Snape (United Kingdom Office for National Statistics) – Chair of the Task Force Blerta Muja (Albania) Diana Martirosova and Lusine Markosyan (Armenia) Olga Yakimovich (Belarus) Andrew Heisz, Cilanne Boulet and Sarah McDermott (Canada) Jiří Vopravil (Czechia) Sebastian Czajka (Germany) Moniek Coumans and Judit Arends (Netherlands) Stase Novel (North Macedonia) Cecilia-Roxana Adam (Romania) Nora Meister (Switzerland) Laura Tolland (United Kingdom) Laryssa Mykyta (Unites States) Didier Dupré and Agata Kaczmarek-Firth (Eurostat) Carlotta Balestra (OECD) Elena Danilova-Cross (UNDP Istanbul Regional Hub) Andres Vikat and Vania Etropolska (UNECE) Sabina Alkire, Ricardo Nogales, Fanni Kovesdi, and Sophie Scharlin-Pettee (Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative) 1 CONTENTS 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 4 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Outline of the Guide ..................................................................................................................... 5 2 What
    [Show full text]
  • UNDP REZIME.Indd
    3 National Human Development Report 2009 Montenegro: Society for All Montenegro Summary NHDR 2009 Highlights Social exclusion has become a visible phenomenon in Montenegro. Over the last several years the country has achieved impressive growth as a result of the economic boom in the construction, tourism, retail, telecommunications and banking sectors. Although this growth has created many opportunities for the human development of the poor and so- cially excluded, it has not adequately translated into improved social inclusion or poverty reduction. In recognition of the importance of the European Union’s (EU) social inclusion process, the Government of Montenegro has committed to providing adequate health, education, hous- ing and other social services to its citizens and has adopted a range of policy strategies ad- 4 dressing social exclusion. The Government signed a Stabilization and Association agreement with the EU in 2007 and submitted its application for candidate status in December 2008. This National Human Development Report (NHDR) is based on an open, intensive public dis- cussion on the extent and complex nature and dynamics of social exclusion in Montenegro. The human development approach, as defi ned by UNDP, views people as the real wealth of nations. Human development is the process by which the range of opportunities and choices available to people can be expanded. Human development is impossible without the social inclusion of everyone, or without a process which ensures that those at risk of poverty and social exclusion have equal access to the opportunities and resources necessary to participate fully in economic, social and cultural life and to enjoy a standard of living and well-being that is considered normal in the society in which they live.
    [Show full text]
  • Robust Methodology for Laeken Indicators
    Advanced Methodology for European Laeken Indicators Deliverable 4.2 Robust Methodology for Laeken Indicators Version: 2011 Beat Hulliger, Andreas Alfons, Peter Filzmoser, Angelika Meraner, Tobias Schoch and Matthias Templ The project FP7{SSH{2007{217322 AMELI is supported by European Commission funding from the Seventh Framework Programme for Research. http://ameli.surveystatistics.net/ II Contributors to deliverable 4.2 Chapter 1: Beat Hulliger and Tobias Schoch, University of Applied Sciences Northwest- ern Switzerland. Chapter 2: Beat Hulliger and Tobias Schoch, University of Applied Sciences Northwest- ern Switzerland. Chapter 3: Andreas Alfons, Matthias Templ, Peter Filzmoser, and Josef Holzer, Vienna University of Technology. Chapter 4: Beat Hulliger and Tobias Schoch, University of Applied Sciences Northwest- ern Switzerland. Chapter 5: Beat Hulliger and Tobias Schoch, University of Applied Sciences Northwest- ern Switzerland. Chapter 6: Beat Hulliger and Tobias Schoch, University of Applied Sciences Northwest- ern Switzerland. Chapter 7: Beat Hulliger and Tobias Schoch, University of Applied Sciences Northwest- ern Switzerland. Chapter 8: Matthias Templ, Alexander Kowarik, Peter Filzmoser, Vienna University of Technology. Chapter 9: Beat Hulliger and Tobias Schoch, University of Applied Sciences Northwest- ern Switzerland. Chapter 10: Beat Hulliger and Tobias Schoch, University of Applied Sciences North- western Switzerland. Chapter 11: Matthias Templ, Karel Hron, Peter Filzmoser, Vienna University of Tech- nology. Chapter 12: Angelika Meraner, Peter Filzmoser, and Matthias Templ, Vienna Univer- sity of Technology. Main responsibility Beat Hulliger, University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland. Evaluators Internal experts: Ralf Munnich,¨ Christian Bruch, Tobias Enderle, Jan-Philipp Kolb, and Stefan Zins AMELI-WP4-D4.2 III Aim and Objectives of Deliverable 4.2 Indicators and in particular the Laeken indicators are vulnerable to outliers.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimation of Social Exclusion Indicators from Complex Surveys: the R Package Laeken
    Estimation of Social Exclusion Indicators from Complex Surveys: The R Package laeken Andreas Alfons Matthias Templ Erasmus University Rotterdam Vienna University of Technology Abstract This package vignette is an up-to-date version of Alfons and Templ(2013), published in the Journal of Statistical Software. Units sampled from finite populations typically come with different inclusion proba- bilities. Together with additional preprocessing steps of the raw data, this yields unequal sampling weights of the observations. Whenever indicators are estimated from such com- plex samples, the corresponding sampling weights have to be taken into account. In addition, many indicators suffer from a strong influence of outliers, which are a common problem in real-world data. The R package laeken is an object-oriented toolkit for the estimation of indicators from complex survey samples via standard or robust methods. In particular the most widely used social exclusion and poverty indicators are imple- mented in the package. A general calibrated bootstrap method to estimate the variance of indicators for common survey designs is included as well. Furthermore, the package contains synthetically generated close-to-reality data for the European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions and the Structure of Earnings Survey, which are used in the code examples throughout the paper. Even though the paper is focused on showing the functionality of package laeken, it also provides a brief mathematical description of the implemented indicator methodology. Keywords: indicators, robust estimation, sample weights, survey methodology, R. 1. Introduction Estimation of indicators is one of the main tasks in survey statistics. They are usually esti- mated from complex surveys with many thousands of observations, conducted in a harmonized manner over many countries.
    [Show full text]
  • European Union Countries Practice on Relative Poverty Measurement
    EUROPEAN UNION COUNTRIES PRACTICE ON RELATIVE POVERTY MEASUREMENT Ian DENNIS1 1 Administrator, Project Leader: Statistics on Income, Poverty & Social Exclusion, Eurostay III. RELATIVE POVERTY A Introduction. Conceptual guidelines to define limits of the content of this section 1.1 It is axiomatic that before one can start to measure a phenomenon, it has first to be adequately defined. Within the European Union (EU) this issue is a subject of perennial, intrinsic interest, but in recent years it has received increasing political attention. Opinion polls have highlighted concerns about the persistence of poverty (varying definitions) and the rise of new forms (ie. new groups at risk) in the context of a re-evaluation of existing social protection systems. The concept of a ‘European Social Model’ as a distinguishing factor from the United States of America has increasingly seen quality of life as a complement or replacement for the central focus on economic wealth. 1.2 Unfortunately, it is difficult to find a definition of ‘quality of life’ that satisfies everyone. Even for the more restricted concept of ‘poverty’ the list of potential alternatives is already long and continuously evolving. Accordingly, any selected definition is to some extent arbitrary, depending on the prevailing value consensus. 1.3 An official definition was adopted by the Dublin European Council in 1984, which regards as poor: “…those persons, families and groups of persons whose resources (material, cultural and social) are so limited as to exclude them from the minimum acceptable way of life in the Member State to which they belong.” This definition, whilst not operationally precise, clearly implies a multidimensional, dynamic and relative approach.
    [Show full text]
  • Poverty Estimation Methods: a Comparison Under Box-Cox Type Transformations with Application to Mexican Data
    Poverty Estimation Methods: a Comparison under Box-Cox Type Transformations with Application to Mexican Data \In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." { Confucius Latin America stands out together with Sub-Saharan Africa as one of the most unequal regions in the world ([LP08]). This problem was acknowledged by the United Nations, which argued that fighting poverty should be the first and the most important of the Millennium Development Goals to be addressed in this century ([WHO08]). However, to achieve this, it is crucial to obtain a detailed description of the spatial distribution of poverty for understanding the geographic conditions where the poor live within a coun- try. For this purpose, poverty mapping procedures are commonly applied following three principal steps: 1. Choose poverty indicators (like the Gini coefficient) and a poverty threshold if re- quired 2. Select input variables from survey and census datasets 3. Choose an optimal poverty estimation method and conduct the estimation process of the previously selected indicators 4. Obtain a high resolution map, here called poverty map, by plotting the resulting estimates on the geographical coordinates. Traditionally, methodologies for measuring poverty and inequality relied on conventional monetary-based magnitudes such as household per capita income, consumption level and Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In other words, they are based on the analysis of a one−dimensional poverty concept: income−poverty. In this context, a poverty line, also known as threshold, is derived from an estimate of an adequate minimum income in a given country and is commonly set by national governments.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Inclusion in Bosnia and Herzegovina
    NHDR-final 3/1/07 11:12 AM Page 1 National Human Development Report 2007 Social Inclusion in Bosnia and Herzegovina NHDR-final 3/1/07 11:12 AM Page 2 National Human Social Inclusion Development Report 2007 2 in Bosnia and Herzegovina ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Supervisor: Association of People with Cerebral Palsy of the Sarajevo Armin SIR»O, Senior Portfolio Manager, UNDP BiH. Canton (Novotni Nevenko); Association of People with Multiple Sclerosis of the Sarajevo Canton (BahtijareviÊ Team Leader: Dr. Æarko PAPI∆. Fata); Association of Paraplegics of the Sarajevo Canton Authors (in alphabetical order): Maida FETAHAGI∆, Boris (SlimoviÊ Zula); Association of Parents with Children with HRABA», Fahrudin MEMI∆, Ranka NINKOVI∆, Adila Special Needs ”Sunce nam je zajedniËko”, Trebinje (Mijat PA©ALI∆-KRESO, Lejla SOMUN-KRUPALIJA and Miodrag ©aroviÊ, –urica Bora, IvaniπeviÊ Stana, LonËar Draæenka, ÆIVANOVI∆. »uËkoviÊ Sneæana, –eriÊ Jovanka, VuËureviÊ Biljana, BoπkoviÊ Mila); Association of Blind People of the Sarajevo Ana ABDELBASIT and Sarina BAKI∆, Project Assistants, for Canton (Fikret Zuko, Miljko Branko, AntiÊ Amira, ©akanoviÊ their huge contribution to the work of the NHDR-2007 Bejza); Blind Women's Committee (HadæiÊ Amina); BiH team. Union of Blind People (NiπiÊ Risto); Centar za Kulturu UNDP BiH Editorial Team Dijaloga, Sarajevo (Selma DizdareviÊ); Centar za Ljudska Prava, Mostar (Gordana Blaæ); Centar za Socijalni Rad, Christine McNAB, UNDP Resident Representative in Bosnia Trebinje (Mira ∆uk); Red Cross of the Tuzla Canton, Tuzla and Herzegovina;
    [Show full text]
  • Analysing and Measuring Social Inclusion in a Global Context ST/ESA/325
    Analysing and Measuring Social Inclusion in a Global Context ST/ESA/325 Department of Economic and Social Affairs Analysing and Measuring Social Inclusion in a Global Context United Nations New York, 2010 DESA The Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat is a vital interface between global policies in the economic, social and environmental spheres and national action. The Department works in three main interlinked areas: (i) it compiles, generates, and analyses a wide range of economic, social and environmental data and information on which States Members of the United Nations draw to review common problems and to take stock of policy options; (ii) it facilitates the negotiations of Member States in many intergovernmental bodies on joint courses of action to address ongoing or emerging global challenges; and (iii) it advises interested Governments on the ways and means of translating policy frameworks developed in United Nations conferences and summits into programmes at the country level and, through technical assistance, helps build national capacities. Note The views expressed in the present publication are those of the authors and do not imply the expression of any opinion on the part of the United Nations Secretariat concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letter combined with figures. When it appears, such a symbol refers to a United Nations document. ST/ESA/325 United Nations publication Sales No. E.09.IV.16 ISBN 978-92-1-130286-8 Copyright © United Nations, 2010 All rights reserved Printed by the United Nations, New York Preface In the past 20 years, there has been steady progress in achieving socio-economic development, promoting wider support for democratic values and strengthening collaborative relationships among governments, social insti- tutions and civil society worldwide.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimating Poverty Lines for South Africa
    ESTIMATING POVERTY LINES FOR SOUTH AFRICA Discussion Document – Research Commissioned by the Department of Social Development Prepared by Morné Oosthuizen, Development Policy Research Unit, UCT INTRODUCTION In societies around the world, there is concern over the plight of the poor. In South Africa, years of active discriminatory policymaking and neglect have resulted in high levels of inequality, characterised by extreme wealth on the one hand and desperate poverty on the other. The eradication of poverty, therefore, is one of the top priorities for the government, as well as various other sectors of South African society. However, for policy to effectively target and improve the lives of poor individuals and households, an appropriate poverty measure – or poverty line – is required. There is a long history of poverty measurement, dating back over a century. Gillie (1996: 728) refers to a variety of lines starting from the 1880s, including those of Alexander McDougall, Charles Booth, and Seebohm Rowntree, many of which stemmed from “the provision in the 1870 [British] Elementary Education Act requiring school boards to develop criteria of poverty”. Over time, as societies and national and international norms, particularly regarding human rights, have evolved, so too has our understanding and conceptualisation of poverty. Thus, while poverty was originally measured exclusively in monetary terms and in terms of income, its conceptualisation and measurement has extended to the encompass the ability of individuals and households to effectively meet their basic needs and, further, to engage on an equal footing in their societies. It can be strongly argued that, in terms of policymaking, the choice of a specific poverty line within a generally broad range is not as important as the fact that there is consensus over the line.
    [Show full text]