to compare the magnitude of poverty across time and space. In this
comparative context, what is there 'for all to see' may depend a great
deal on the eyes of the beholder. There may not exist any basis for
agreement among different observers without an agreed framework of
measurement. Economists, therefore, have been rightly concerned with
the framework of measuring poverty; and in pursuit of this concern they
have long been drawing upon the science of nutrition. Since absolute
poverty and the loss of nutritional capabilities tend to go hand in hand,
it has seemed natural to measure poverty by the extent of a population's
failure to achieve desirable nutritional status.

However, as economists delved into the question of nutrition, they
soon discovered that there were no ready-made answers waiting for
them. Whether the problem was one of understanding the processes of
poverty or assessing its magnitude, the relevant nutritional issues were
found to be matters of ongoing, and sometimes very contentious, debate
among the nutritionists themselves. Economists soon joined this debate,
and nutritionists in turn brought their own perspectives to bear on the
questions being asked by the economists. The resulting interchange,
both within and across the disciplines, has spawned a large and interes-
ting, if at times somewhat confusing, literature. The present book grew
out of the felt need to consolidate the outcome of this interchange and
to carry it forward. Accordingly, the papers, all written especially for this
volume by a group of nutritionists, economists, and economic historians,
collectively offer both stock-taking of existing knowledge and attempts
to break fresh ground.

Without trying to be exhaustive, I shall proceed to highlight some of
the major issues the authors have grappled with.

One recurring theme concerns the reference standard of nutritional
status. Whether we are interested in the processes or the magnitude of
nutritional deprivation, we need to define a reference standard of nutri-
tional status against which the actual status can be compared. Ideally,
the reference standard should refer to that coveted nutritional status in
which a person suffers from no disability in any of his nutrition-related
functions (such as immunological competence, physical work capacity,
cognitive function, reproductive capacity, etc.). But does such an ideal
state exist?

Gopalan and Payne take conflicting positions on this matter. Gopalan's
paper (Chapter 2), which in fact reflects much of the mainstream
views on the range of issues covered in this volume, clearly suggests that
such a state does exist. This is evident from his criticism of some of the
criteria of nutritional adequacy that have been suggested by Payne and
others. His method of criticism is to show, through empirical evidence,
that the achievement of adequacy as judged by these criteria would still
leave people deficient in at least some of the nutrition-related functions.

-2-