The validity of subjective assessments of deprivation

The data correspond to the paper which examines the validity of subjective information
in assessing well-being under conditions of deprivation. It does so by comparing
two mutually exclusive assumptions across disciplines. From one perspective,
development studies have assumed that people are reconciled to deprivation,
which is represented as their adaptive preference, leading commentators to
underrate subjectivity and to focus on objective information (such as the Human
Development Index (HDI), Millenium Development Goals (MDGs), and Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs)). This is despite a growing awareness of the need for
multidimensional analyses implied by the slogan ‘Moving beyond GDP’. From the
alternative perspective, psychology has assumed that deprivation should be
evaluated solely in terms of psychological need, leading commentators to
overrate subjectivity and to focus on subjective information or self-assessment
even when focusing on relatively advantaged populations. For a more
comprehensive understanding of well-being, the conceptual gap needs to be addressed
empirically. Against this backdrop, by using data from cities located in three
emerging economies the present study tests the validity of the assumptions by analysing
objective and subjective information from both deprived and non-deprived
populations. It concludes by demonstrating the validity of subjective
assessments of deprivation.