The validity of subjective assessments of deprivation

The data correspond to the paper which examines the validity of subjective informationin assessing well-being under conditions of deprivation. It does so by comparingtwo 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 tounderrate subjectivity and to focus on objective information (such as the HumanDevelopment Index (HDI), Millenium Development Goals (MDGs), and SustainableDevelopment Goals (SDGs)). This is despite a growing awareness of the need formultidimensional analyses implied by the slogan ‘Moving beyond GDP’. From thealternative perspective, psychology has assumed that deprivation should beevaluated solely in terms of psychological need, leading commentators tooverrate subjectivity and to focus on subjective information or self-assessmenteven when focusing on relatively advantaged populations. For a morecomprehensive understanding of well-being, the conceptual gap needs to be addressedempirically. Against this backdrop, by using data from cities located in threeemerging economies the present study tests the validity of the assumptions by analysingobjective and subjective information from both deprived and non-deprivedpopulations. It concludes by demonstrating the validity of subjectiveassessments of deprivation.