IS poverty in Ireland on the increase? It seems like a perfectly straightforward question, but upon closer inspection it turns out to be anything but. Is it relative poverty you're asking about, or perhaps it's so-called 'consistent' poverty you have in mind? If it's relative poverty you want to know about, what do you want it measured against? Fifty per cent of average inco

IS poverty in Ireland on the increase? It seems like a perfectly straightforward question, but upon closer inspection it turns out to be anything but. Is it relative poverty you're asking about, or perhaps it's so-called 'consistent' poverty you have in mind? If it's relative poverty you want to know about, what do you want it measured against? Fifty per cent of average income, or 60pc, or maybe 70pc?

All is revealed in a new report issued yesterday by the Economic and Social Research Institute called 'Monitoring Poverty Trends in Ireland'. It examines just about every measure of poverty you'd care to mention. What it shows, or rather what it confirms, is that relative poverty is increasing, and consistent poverty is decreasing. How can it show these two seemingly contradictory facts? The answer is that relative poverty and consistent poverty are two quite different things. A person is considered to be in relative poverty if he or she lives on an income that is less than a specified percentage of average income. In other words, if the person is poor relative to other people. The percentage is usually pegged at 60pc or 70pc. The reason there were far more people living on less than 60pc of average income in 2001 (21.9pc) than there were before the Celtic Tiger (15.6pc in 1994) is largely because average incomes have increased much faster than social welfare rates. In other words, people on social welfare are not keeping up with the Joneses.

But this does not mean that people in relative poverty are actually poorer in real terms than they were before the economic boom. In fact, they are considerably better off because social welfare rates increased faster than the cost of living. So the Celtic Tiger did indeed benefit the less well off. It just benefited some more than others.

One way of (roughly) measuring whether or not people are better off in real terms is to use the so-called 'consistent poverty' measure. This asks whether those on less than 60pc or 70pc of average incomes can afford some of the basics in life like a warm coat, or a couple of pairs of decent shoes, or a roast once a week.

The ESRI reports says that consistent poverty has, thankfully, declined from 14.5pc in 1994 to 4.9pc in 2001.

Hopefully you can now see why poverty can be increasing and decreasing at the same time. It all depends on how you measure it, and what you compare it against. But just when you thought you had things figured out, the ESRI is trying to change the rules of the game again.

It wants to change the definition of consistent poverty to reflect the fact that our view of what amounts to a decent standard of living is changing all the time.

In 1900 a poor person might have been defined as someone who literally couldn't afford to put food on the table. By the ESRI's measure, a poor person just before the arrival of the Celtic Tiger meant someone who couldn't afford a roast once a week, or some other similar indicator.

Now that we've had the boom and we enjoy a standard of living similar to Germany's, what should our definition of consistent poverty be? According to the ESRI, it should include some of the old indicators plus new ones such as an inability to afford a one-week annual holiday, or to invite friends or family around to the house for a meal once a month.

Most people would probably agree that if you can't afford a couple of decent pairs of shoes then you are poor by today's standards. Many people would still agree you are poor if you can afford a colour TV set, a video or DVD player, food on the table, but can't afford an annual holiday.

But how many people would consider a person to be poor who lives on roughly 70pc of average income, especially when average income has increased so rapidly in recent years, and their real income has increased?

To a large extent what relative income poverty is really measuring is inequality. Some people find inequality deeply offensive even if those in relative poverty are enjoying an improved standard of living. Others do not. In the end it is a judgment call, a question of values.

Almost everyone is concerned about poverty in the sense of not being able to afford what we consider to be the basics of life. A lot fewer of us are concerned about inequality unless it is as gross as what is found in say, Brazil.

So the ongoing debate about poverty is not at all as simple as it seems. Before you can begin to understand it, you first have to know what kind of poverty is being talked about, and then you have to consider your own values and political outlook.

The ESRI report helps things along considerably. Now it's a matter of getting the message out.