Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Les analyses qualitatives de la pauvreté : continuité ou rupture ?

Contents:

Author Info

Abstract

La prise en compte des multiples dimensions de la pauvreté ainsi que le repérage de nouvelles formes de pauvreté ont conduit à un enrichissement progressif des thématiques liées à l'analyse de ce phénomène économique et social. Les méthodologies dites qualitatives se sont développées afin de répondre à ces nouveaux questionnements en prenant en compte les perceptions de la pauvreté ainsi que les aspects sociaux et culturels conjointement aux aspects strictement économiques. De part leur cadre paradigmatique compréhensif, elles s'inscrivent en rupture par rapport aux approches standards de la pauvreté. En retenant un concept de bien-être fondé sur les réalités vécues de la pauvreté, les approches qualitatives ont produit des résultats centraux notamment en ce qui concerne l'identification de la pauvreté et l'analyse du processus de la pauvreté. Cependant, les analyses qualitatives sont profondément complémentaires des analyses quantitatives. En effet les premières sont caractérisées par l'observation du singulier quand les secondes ont pour objectif le repérage de relations stables et régulières. La combinaison qualitatif-quantitatif permet ainsi d'enrichir l'analyse de la pauvreté. Investigations about poverty dimensions and new forms of poverty have broadened the concept of poverty and, as a consequence, the scientific debate. Qualitative methods are a way to take into account these new issues by intergrating on the one hand, individual perceptions ofpoverty, and, on the other hand, cultural, social and economic aspects. Actualy, one of the mainquestions concerns continuity or change between the different kinds of approaches : qualitative or quantitative ones. There is an epistemologic gap. Qualitative approaches — that rely on self-perception of well-being by individuals — appear to be more relevant than standards methodsin order to identify who the poors really are. Nevertheless both of these approaches are fully complementary. As a matter of fact, the first one focuses on the observation of which is particular, meanwhile the second one deals wilth the raising of regular and stable relations. Combining qualitative and quantitative investigations permits then to improve poverty analysis.(Full text in French)

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://ged.u-bordeaux4.fr/ceddt81.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Groupe d'Economie du Développement de l'Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV in its series Documents de travail with number 81.

as in new window
Length: 17 pages
Date of creation: Mar 2003
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:mon:ceddtr:81

Contact details of provider:

Related research

Keywords:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Ravallion, Martin & Lokshin, Michael, 2000. "Identifying welfare effects from subjective questions," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2301, The World Bank.
  2. Jesko Hentschel, 1999. "Contextuality and data collection methods: A framework and application to health service utilisation," The Journal of Development Studies, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 35(4), pages 64-94.
  3. Kanbur, Ravi & Squire, Lyn, 1999. "The Evolution of Thinking About Poverty: Exploring the Interactions," Working Papers 127697, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mon:ceddtr:81

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.