Systematic review was the strategy used. Initially, to construct the review, the following guiding question was formulated: What are the theoretical and practical perspectives that have been developed regarding the measurement of subjective poverty? For this purpose, a search was conducted using the Capes Periodical and the Virtual Health Library (VHL) Regional Portal. These platforms were selected based on their aggregation of other databases, allowing for a greater diversity of sources. The search was carried out on January 6th and 7th, 2022. A temporal scope of ten years was considered, limiting the search to peer-reviewed articles published between 2010 and 2021.

The Boolean descriptor “AND” was utilized to retrieve articles from the platform, with quotation marks used between the descriptors to enable the retrieval of compound/entire words. Initially, 186 articles were retrieved based on the English descriptors, and 87 articles were retrieved based on the Portuguese descriptors, totaling 263 articles as illustrated in Table 1.

At this stage of the research, we followed the strategy proposed by the PRISMA recommendation to filter the articles based on their title, abstract, and keywords. As an inclusion criterion, the studies were required to provide empirical analytical contributions on subjective poverty as a central and primary element of the study’s discussion. Articles in both Portuguese and foreign languages, such as English and Spanish, were considered eligible for inclusion. The exclusion criteria encompassed the following aspects: (a) mention of “subjective poverty” without conceptualization; (b) studies lacking instruments or theoretical delimitation aimed at measuring subjective poverty and its correlates; (c) emphasis on other dimensions of poverty without a direct connection to subjective poverty. The flowchart in Figure 1 illustrates the number of articles eliminated by each criterion.

Following the analysis, 219 articles were excluded, primarily due to the lack of a central focus on the subjective dimension of poverty. Some of the excluded articles focused solely on people’s perceptions of poverty, while others exclusively discussed subjective well-being. Other articles conducted analyses focusing on income satisfaction and other characteristics of poverty measurement. Although relevant, these topics were not pertinent to the proposed analysis. There were 11 duplicate articles, leaving 32 unique articles for full-text examination. Furthermore, in addition to the comprehensive reading, these articles underwent assessment using the Checklist for Assessing the Quality of Survey Studies in Psychology (Q-SSP) proposed by Protogerou and Hagger (2020), which provided cut-off points facilitating the decision on the inclusion and exclusion of research in the systematic review.

Based on the criteria outlined by Protogerou and Hagger (2020), the studies included in this review met an average of 73% of the requirements, which the authors deemed an acceptable outcome. Thus, following the comprehensive review and assessment using the Q-SSP, 15 articles were excluded for not meeting the established inclusion and exclusion criteria. The main reasons for exclusion included focusing on other aspects related to poverty, discussions on subjective well-being and alternative measures of poverty, as well as significant gaps in information regarding the population and the collected data. Consequently, the final corpus comprised 17 articles for content analysis and presentation of the results. As depicted in Figure 1.

Primarily, it is essential to note that most studies consider the subjective measurement of poverty as a self-report measure. As Borsboom (2005) frequently points out, the implications of this can be problematic when other sciences, aside from psychology, aim to measure psychological or subjective aspects. This often results in the inclusion of self-reporting or the use of open-ended questions in an attempt to measure these aspects. However, subjective questions do not necessarily measure subjective aspects. Thus, when analyzing the studies, it becomes apparent that they do not always refer to a subjective analysis of poverty. Instead, what is sometimes found is the reduction of this analysis to the self-reporting of the subjects involved in the research. However, this is not a unique characteristic to this review. Welfare economics studies, which form the basis of the conception of subjective poverty measurement, inherently define self-reporting or self-perception of poverty as their main characteristic (Nandori, 2014, 2015). This finding is significant because, to some extent, it mediates the analysis of the findings through the epistemological limitation of the lack of depth in a subjective perspective, as proposed by studies analyzing the psychosocial implications of poverty (Ximenes et al., 2015; Ximenes et al., 2016).

Therefore, one of the important observations related to the findings of this review is the recognition that subjective poverty, as a construct, varies depending on the definition of poverty being advocated. While this may seem like an obvious conclusion, it is also fundamental for reflecting on this discussion. In general terms, subjective approaches to poverty align with the perspective that individuals’ self-perception is essential for understanding poverty, and they attribute the sense of subjective poverty to this self-perception. However, self-perception is assessed through various measurement methods, ranging from directly asking individuals whether they consider themselves in a situation of poverty to conducting subjective measurement through questions related to well-being and quality of life (Fletcher & Castillo, 2011; Posel & Rogan, 2014). The influence of other aspects of this perception, such as social comparison and adaptability to income/financial conditions experienced, must be considered (García-Quero & Guardiola, 2017). This is because there are many nuances to consider when defining what poverty is, directly impacting the construct of subjective poverty or the subjective dimension of poverty. Furthermore, if the advocated perspective of poverty is monetary, subjective poverty is also delineated based on perceptions of economic status (Crettaz & Suter, 2013; Guagnano et al., 2015). If the poverty measurement is based on the deprivation of basic needs, the delineations of the subjective dimension of poverty will revolve around satisfaction with basic needs and life (Bici, 2018; Nandori, 2014, 2015).

Even though there is a consensus on the relevance of asking individuals about their thoughts on poverty and how they perceive themselves in the face of this phenomenon, it is understood that there are reasons why they may not respond based on their actual conditions (Bici, 2018). Among these reasons are shame and humiliation that can be linked to the experience of poverty (Ximenes et al., 2016). Similarly, the effects of social comparison and adaptation to living conditions, even if these are below what would be considered adequate for a certain context and country’s quality of life, are also significant factors (García-Carro & Sánchez-Sellero, 2019; Mahmood et al., 2018).

Thus, it reaffirms the understanding that poverty is not just material or demarcated by the lack of access to goods and services, but also involves symbolic and cultural processes that constitute and maintain these oppressive realities, impacting the subjective expressions of the individual (Ximenes et al., 2015). This is important because, concerning the subjective aspects of poverty, it is essential not to psychologize the phenomenon (Ximenes et al., 2016). Therefore, conceiving a subjective analysis of poverty does not mean finding within the individuals in situations of poverty the causes of their own poverty, but recognizing the effects of living in deprivation on them, and primarily, the traps produced by processes of domination and oppression that operationalize forms of existence curtailed by social inequalities (Martín-Baró 2017).

Mahmood et al. (2018) also corroborate what other authors have pointed out, that poverty is also a subjective feeling, as individuals objectively in poverty may not feel poor, just as the opposite can be true, where objectively non-poor individuals may feel poor. Based on this reflection, Fletcher and Castillo (2011) consider that there are many cases in which a person is considered poor by experts but does not consider themselves as such, and vice versa, where the person is not considered poor, yet perceives themselves as poor. This is because the subjective approach to poverty is, in essence, an analysis of the social context experienced by individuals. This analysis takes into account the effects of the social position occupied by individuals, their socioeconomic contexts, family configuration, social comparison with peers, social adaptability, social capital, race/ethnicity, perspectives on happiness, satisfaction and well-being, experiences of oppression, shame, and humiliation related to social status, among other factors (Arroyo-Mina & Ruiz-Cardona, 2016; Bici, 2018; Jiménez & Herrera, 2017; Ximenes et al., 2015).

However, there are multiple possibilities for conceptualization, even though in its historical constitution, the subjective measurement of poverty, primarily, is defined by its main characteristic, which is to be a self-report measure (Mahmood et al., 2018). Nevertheless, many concepts are proposed; some are based on questioning the adequacy of consumption, while others, more comprehensive, understand the construct in relation to subjective well-being, thus including questions about happiness and life satisfaction (Nandori, 2014, 2015). Others propose classification levels that range from the poorest to the wealthiest (García-Quero & Guardiola, 2017).

One of the main contributions regarding the approach to subjective poverty is the understanding that people’s self-assessment is influenced both by economic/monetary factors and by affective and emotional factors, as these impact quality of life. Furthermore, well-being is also related to the satisfaction derived from the consumption of certain goods and services and, indirectly, to income (Arroyo-Mina & Ruiz-Cardona, 2016). Thus, it is important to consider that a subjective approach to poverty can provide valuable insights, as objective measures tend to ignore the influences of living in society, which affect what people perceive as poverty and the ways to address it (Fletcher & Castillo, 2011). Poverty measurement in countries often only considers aspects related to people’s income and does not include the quality and availability of public services. These are important because they directly affect the well-being of the population. Even people with better income conditions feel they have a better standard of living when they can rely on government support for certain services (Baldini et al., 2018).

As per the nomenclature, whether subjective poverty line or subjective dimension of poverty, the findings suggest that both are possible, and the choice is demarcated by the poverty measurement framework. Multidimensional measures commonly consider subjective poverty as a dimension of the poverty construct, such as education, health, work, and income (Ximenes et al., 2016). Studies that adopt a linear poverty measurement perspective categorize the concept as a line, where classification between poor and non-poor individuals is made based on specific cutoff points (García-Quero & Guardiola, 2017). However, it is worth noting that even within a multidimensional poverty perspective, it is possible to include questions solely about the monetary perception in this dimension (Filandri et al., 2020). In a linear perspective, it is also possible to include constructs more related to subjective well-being delimited by the intersubjective reality of the population (Arroyo-Mina & Ruiz-Cardona, 2016; Castillo et al., 2011).

As Bici (2018) points out, subjective measures of poverty can stem from both monetary and non-monetary aspects. In other words, including people’s self-perception of poverty does not necessarily encompass discussing all the aspects involved in the experience of poverty. The analysis of the studies indicated the existence of more and less inclusive perspectives on the phenomenon. Jiménez and Herrera (2017) point out that there is a relationship between subjective poverty and the quality of governance; good governance reduces the likelihood of the population being subjectively poor, whereas the inefficiency of public institutions affects the entire population. According to Nandori (2015), the subjective perspective can also include what people think about the causes of poverty, and depending on this stance, poverty measures can be more or less supported, with distinct objectives, from alleviating to tackling poverty. Thus, the understanding is that the subjective approach to poverty needs to foster strategies for social change that can not only unveil the conditions of poverty but also bring to light the mechanisms of oppression and subjugation, strengthening perspectives that consider poverty as a product of an unequal society (Martín-Baró, 2017).

Considering the delimited analyses, it is possible to infer that the choice of nomenclature is determined by the data sources, constructs involved in the measure, and theoretical and ethical-political perspectives. Most research is based on national surveys, so terminologies also stem from the reference instrument. Therefore, considering that the subjective approach to poverty to be assumed in this study is intertwined with the recognition of it as a complex, multiple phenomenon with objective and subjective consequences, especially in a society like Brazil marked by profound social inequalities, it is understood that we cannot proceed from an exclusively monetary perspective. Rather, a perspective that includes the psychosocial implications of poverty in individuals’ lives, which are also traversed by other social markers and the unequal and unjust societal structure itself (Ximenes et al., 2015).

Concerning measurement, a crucial aspect to highlight is the ongoing lack of consensus on the variables or characteristics constituting subjective poverty. The influence of the concept of poverty itself on the measure is evident. However, given the dominance of objective measures and the prominence of visible effects of poverty on populations, a gap exists in the subjective measurement of poverty (Bici, 2018; Jiménez & Herrera, 2017). However, Castillo et al. (2011) consider that the objective indicators of poverty (absolute and relative) do not include aspects related to well-being in their analyses, such as bodily, social, and psychological well-being, security, and freedom of choice and action. Therefore, studies of subjective approaches to poverty have gained more relevance.

Posel and Rogan (2014) argue that subjective measures of poverty offer advantages as they do not necessitate a predetermined poverty line and present a more accurate depiction of the reality experienced by individuals. Moreover, subjective measures of poverty can offer insights into individuals’ long-term living conditions, allowing observation, for instance, of wealth accumulation or improvements in life over the subjects’ lifetimes (Fletcher & Castillo, 2011) and how this can reflect on future generations (Bici, 2018). However, Nandori (2014) points out that there is no intention to replace objective measures with subjective ones. What is proposed is the complementarity of measures, asserting that subjective measures facilitate the assessment of families’ economic well-being. This, in turn, enables comparisons to be made with objective results, thereby enhancing the poverty measurement process (Arroyo-Mina & Ruiz-Cardona, 2016).

Jiménez and Herrera (2017) understand that the complementarity of measures, especially the possibility of establishing a subjective measurement of poverty, can foster a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon. For public policies, this means having tools that can more efficiently allocate public social spending, based on the needs identified by the individuals themselves. Filandri et al. (2020). also consider that there are differences between the results obtained from objective and subjective measures of poverty, occurring mainly for two reasons: first, individuals in objective poverty may not feel poor, and second, non-poor individuals may feel that they have less than they would like to meet their needs.

Furthermore, the review indicates that poverty measures, especially subjective ones, are heavily influenced by the socioeconomic context in which they are situated. Studies from affluent countries focus more on social well-being (Ahamdanech-Zarco et al., 2011; Nandori, 2014), while studies from developing countries consider other factors such as access to healthcare and education, public policies for alleviating or combating poverty, and the effects of social comparison and adaptive preferences (Castillo et al., 2011; Fletcher & Castillo, 2011). Studies involving impoverished individuals explore perspectives related to human dignity, access to and guarantee of basic rights (Arroyo-Mina & Ruiz-Cordona, 2016; Ximenes et al., 2015; Ximenes et al., 2016). Studies in poor countries focus on the importance of combating social inequality and strengthening poverty-related public policies (Castillo et al., 2011), while those in affluent countries, with populations not in a state of deprivation, focus on improving consumption patterns (Crettaz & Suter, 2013). The studies also highlight the importance of presenting results in a way that does not attribute blame to individuals for their poverty conditions (Nandori, 2015; Mahmood et al., 2018; Ximenes et al., 2016).

Authors such as Guagnano et al. (2015) contend that subjective poverty is influenced by a combination of socioeconomic factors and the impact of the endowment of social capital within the household or community aggregate. They also highlight the prevailing concept of social capital, Guagnano et al. (2015), which defines social capital as comprising relationships, attitudes, institutions, and values that govern interactions among individuals and contribute to socioeconomic development. These authors understand that there is evidence that social capital is strongly related to poverty, as the more social capital available, the more resources are available for poverty alleviation (Guagnano et al., 2015).

Bici (2018) considers that the subjective approach to poverty includes different aspects, such as life satisfaction, income level, food consumption, finances, family size, connections, and relationships, and therefore, they can also be formulated by different methods. Furthermore, the current and past context of individuals, as well as their expectations for the future, must also be considered, and whether these indicate negative or positive trends, whether qualitative or quantitative. It is also relevant for these subjective measures of poverty to consider cultural characteristics, even if this implies drawbacks for comparison with other realities. Thus, the subjective approach to poverty and political choices should be inspired by what each society deems the appropriate quality of life for the people living in that space (García-Quero & Guardiola, 2017).

Hence, questions regarding socioeconomic organization, race, gender, family composition, life satisfaction, subjective well-being, social comparison, social adaptability, and the social inequalities experienced by populations should be considered in the elaboration and conception of subjective poverty. Obviously, the territory and the target population of the research also strongly influence the construct. This can weaken comparisons with other realities, but it also strengthens the recognition of the real living conditions, especially in societies marked by social inequalities and poverty (Mahmood et al., 2018). It is also necessary to consider in the analysis that macrostructural societal structures influence what people think poverty is and its causes, and this directly affects actions to alleviate or confront poverty (Nandori, 2014).

In this way, there is no ready-made recipe for the best way to measure subjective poverty. Nevertheless, an effective approach must consider the specific living conditions of the society under examination. Therefore, it becomes imperative to devise strategies that allow the population to articulate their understanding of poverty, recognizing that their judgments are intricately linked to concrete socioeconomic conditions. Consequently, an analysis of the psychosocial processes associated with the phenomenon of poverty becomes paramount, particularly in societies characterized by pronounced social inequalities, where these processes can be magnified for certain societal groups.