I appreciate John’s November blog, Fourteen theories of poverty, three income measures and no margin for error. He makes it clear that this is a work in progress and welcomes feedback. I have several suggestions that may help further develop his analysis.
The blog starts with a list of fourteen ‘theories of poverty’ that have shaped policy in Canada. It goes on to explore the commonalities and differences among these theories and proposes a new integrating theme: the ‘absence of slack’.
Additional points
I think the list of fourteen is useful but some additions are needed. These relate to framing the concept of poverty in terms human rights. It is probably implicit in the list, but it needs highlighting. There is a big gap in understanding between policy shops, dominated by economists who think in terms of trade-offs (balancing winners and losers) and of advocates and people with a legal background who think in terms of rights.
This is only an editorial point, but why is administrative poverty, mentioned later, not also on the list?
Also, I think the blog should mention Opportunities for All, Canada’s 2018 poverty reduction strategy. It is quite articulate about the dimensions of poverty that are important and how they can be measured. This may not fit into list of 14+ easily but it would be useful to show somewhere in the blog how John’s analysis fits in with the official story about poverty. I think it is pretty unusual for a strategy of this sort to be entrenched in legislation.
Structuring the list
The current list could benefit from more structure. At present, it is a mix of different types of theories—some define what poverty is, others address its extent, some focus on policy priorities, and others discuss causes and symptoms. Clarifying these distinctions would improve the analysis.
What is poverty?
In my view there are two quite different but overlapping concepts of what poverty is. One relates to material deprivation that mainly results from lack of income and the other relates to exclusion (fighting barriers to a full and active life in society).
The exclusion concept encompasses material deprivation but goes much further and, in many wordings, becomes almost a synonym for anything that’s wrong with society – including problems related to dignity, equality, health, lack of social capital, decent jobs, safety, low skill levels, developing human capabilities, freedom, fraternity and so on. You name a problem and we’ll slap a poverty label on it – and then we will have to address it as a matter of human rights.
Most current rhetoric uses the broader exclusion definition. It typically begins with the statement that the poverty has multiple dimensions. But what big social issues don’t have multiple dimensions? What the phrase usually means is that, as John observes, people use the same word — poverty — to describe very different realities. The problem is that this is somehow thought to be a good thing, a recognition of the interconnectedness of issues and the complexity of the real world. The reality is that it is just muddy thinking to use the same word to mean different things. We will only find practical solutions if we can distinguish among the various problems and then show their inter-connectedness.
I may be alone in thinking that it has been unhelpful to use ‘poverty’ – ordinarily understood as material deprivation caused by lack of income – to also refer to the much larger issues of exclusion. It is hard enough to find practical solutions to poverty narrowly defined using income support policy tools. Expanding the definition in way that also includes use of the full range of programs that are addressed to human and social capital, risks diffusing accountability and making solutions much harder to find.
While acknowledging that all social issues are interconnected, practical progress depends on dividing the work into manageable compartments such as poverty reduction (defined as material deprivation caused by lack of income), skills, health, public safety, housing and so on. These separate areas should, of course, be coordinated to examine overlaps, gaps, and interactions – and to take harmonized action. However, it makes more sense for such integration to occur under the broader headings of social well-being or quality-of-life, rather than ‘poverty reduction’ defined in terms of exclusion.
Observation on measurement.
On the topic of measurement, it would be helpful to mention the existing poverty hub on Statistics Canada’s website, which offers more indicators than the three John refers to. More importantly, the blog should emphasize that effective, accountable policy responses require reliable outcome measures. In particular, measuring John’s proposed integrating concept—absence of slack—will I think be difficult. While it is conceptually appealing, it will have limited practical impact unless it can be measured effectively.
Final thought on ‘absence of slack’
Finally, I am not sure that ‘absence of slack’ offers a comprehensive integrating concept for poverty. Instead, it may be more appropriate as a measure of the extent of poverty, whether defined narrowly or broadly. For example, under the material deprivation approach, we already have several measures: the Market Basket Measure, a deep income poverty measure, and the Material Deprivation Index. If we could develop a way to measure the absence of slack, it would be a useful addition to this list.
Peter Hicks, November 23, 2025