Page 69 - The Importance of Common Metrics for Advacing Social Science Theory and Research

The Importance of Common Metrics for Advancing Social Science Theory and Research: A Workshop Summary
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13034.html

SOCIAL SCIENCE CONSTRUCTS 57

cause there are often too many public goods for which consump-
tion is impossible to capture, expenditures or income are often used
for practical purposes.
5. For each unit, compare the threshold to the resources and, if the
threshold is higher, that unit is “in poverty,” otherwise not.

Michael observed that science can provide much guidance on many
but not all of these points, and it depends on the purpose of the measure.
He identified three purposes for which a poverty measure is needed: (1)
as a scientific measure of economic deprivation, (2) as a measure of social
compassion, and (3) to determine eligibility for social programs. Standard-
ization makes sense for the third purpose because of the importance placed
on equitable treatment in eligibility. For the first two purposes, Michael
does not believe that standardization necessarily makes sense.
In his view, politics and vested interests explain why it is so difficult to
shift away from the use of a clearly imperfect poverty measure. Any time
there is a scientific measure that translates into policy, politics will trump
science, he said. Poverty is one of those issues that impacts the allocation
of funds, so it is understandably of immense interest to politicians. He
pointed as an example to a major National Research Council (NRC) effort
that tried to uncouple the concept of poverty measurement from eligibility
(National Research Council, 1995); the report, Measuring Poverty: A New
Approach, has never gained traction, despite its being a good idea.
Michael closed by listing a number of lessons learned related to
standardization:

• If the science does not suggest a consensus, it cannot impose one
and expect to achieve consensus. It is not worth the effort to pur-
sue standardization if it is not needed. One risk to unnecessary
standardization is that weaknesses get codified and reinforced over
time.
• Competition in general is good. Others will adopt what is seen as
the better measure. For example, national income accounts have
been adopted because they are a good idea. This is also true of the
“earnings function” of Jacob Mincer. It too became the standard
because it won the competition of ideas and because of its clarity
and feasibility.
• A community of scientists who are freely cooperating powers sci-
entific discovery. Each person, acting on his or her own initiative,
acts to further the entire group’s achievements (see Michael, 2010).

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.