What does it mean to be poor? Investigating the qualitative-quantitative divide in Mozambique

Bibliographic Data

ID11910668
AuthorsSam Jones (0000-0002-2691-7189, corresponding author), Inge Tvedten (Chr. Michelsen Institute)
Year2019
Volume117
Pages153-166
Publication date2019-01-28
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueWorld Development (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0305-750X • E-ISSN: 1873-5991
PublisherElsevier BV (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.01.005
OpenAlexW2891314025
LanguageEN
Citations received9
References cited63

Economic analyses of poverty focus on who is poor and their profile. • Anthropological analyses focus on lived experiences and social relations of poverty. • Differences between the approaches can be traced to different philosophical commitments. • We illustrate these issues for Mozambique, using household surveys and qualitative fieldwork. • We argue against a forced marriage of the two approaches. Motivated by the siloed nature of much poverty research, as well as the challenge of finding inclusive operational definitions of poverty, this study reflects on the merits of seeking to reconcile economic (quantitative) and anthropological (qualitative) analytical approaches. Drawing on detailed evidence from Mozambique, we highlight fundamental philosophical tensions in poverty research along three main axes: social ontology (what is the form of social reality?); (b) epistemology (what can be known about poverty?); and (c) aetiology (how is poverty produced?). We argue the quantitative tradition is rooted in an atomistic view of the social world, which is allied to an etic epistemology in which causes and effects are treated as analytically separable. Anthropological work in Mozambique is anchored in an emic perspective, where the diverse forms of poverty are revealed through investigation of their generative mechanisms. This provides a view of poverty as a relational process of social marginalization and directs attention to the diversity of lived-experiences, as well as structural factors that limit individuals’ agency. In clarifying their distinct philosophical commitments, we contend that a forced empirical marriage of the two approaches may be unhelpful. Instead, we recommend the virtues of each approach are leveraged toward genuine mutual dialogue

Agency (philosophy · Basic needs · Culture of poverty · Economic growth · Economics · Emic and etic · Epistemology · Ontology · Positive economics · Poverty · Social science · Sociology · Income, Poverty, and Inequality · Microfinance and Financial Inclusion · Poverty, Education, and Child Welfare