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.