Per capita meat If meat consumption is a steady Because meat is a luxury, meat consumption over the fraction of income or consumption may fluctuate last month consumption expenditure, then more than total consumption it would have comparable expenditure. Meat strengths to those measures. consumption over a short It also has the merit of period may, therefore, give a measuring a living standard of poor indication of usual living direct interest to policymakers standards. concerned about nutrition. Some households may choose It is easier to measure than total not to eat meat for religious or consumption expenditure. cultural reasons; a meat consumption measure might understate their level of Indicators of whether a These measures may do a better They are hard to aggregate into household has a dirt floor, job than income or a single for identifying uses water from an consumption expenditure at who is deprived. improved source, and measuring households’ living Again, people with similar sends children to school standards along very important capacity to obtain goods and dimensions. services may choose not to To the extent they reflect assets acquire some of these things rather than income, they may because of differences in also have more to say about preferences. likely future well-being than a current income measure. They are easier to measure than income or consumption expenditure. Individual measures of These measures shed light on They may not vary even when height (for age), weight health, which is of direct non-health dimensions of (for age) and recent interest in the assessment of living standards vary a great illness. well-being. deal. They allow study of the comparative well-being of men/women, young/old within households (unlike all the other measures mentioned above). Because they reflect health assets, they shed light on future prospects as well as the current well-being.
Per capita meat consumption over the last month If meat consumption is a steady fraction of income or consumption expenditure, then it would have comparable strengths to those measures. It also has the merit of measuring a living standard of direct interest to policymakers concerned about nutrition. It is easier to measure than total consumption expenditure. Because meat is a luxury, meat consumption may fluctuate more than total consumption expenditure. Meat consumption over a short period may, therefore, give a poor indication of usual living standards. Some households may choose not to eat meat for religious or cultural reasons; a meat consumption measure might understate their level of Indicators of whether a household has a dirt floor, uses water from an improved source, and sends children to school These measures may do a better job than income or consumption expenditure at measuring households’ living standards along very important dimensions. To the extent they reflect assets rather than income, they may also have more to say about likely future well-being than a current income measure. They are easier to measure than income or consumption expenditure. They are hard to aggregate into a single for identifying who is deprived. Again, people with similar capacity to obtain goods and services may choose not to acquire some of these things because of differences in preferences. Individual measures of height (for age), weight (for age) and recent illness. These measures shed light on health, which is of direct interest in the assessment of well-being. They allow study of the comparative well-being of men/women, young/old within households (unlike all the other measures mentioned above). Because they reflect health assets, they shed light on future prospects as well as the current well-being. They may not vary even when non-health dimensions of living standards vary a great deal.