Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:58:56.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consensual Approaches to Poverty Lines and Social Security*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

J.H. Veit-Wilson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The principal problematic issue in all poverty measures is the source and status of the standards of needs and deprivation. Rejection of minimum subsistence or quasi-absolute approaches to defining poverty, and acceptance of the social relativism of poverty, logically demand that the indicators of deprivation equally be derived from the society in question and not be prescribed for it by ‘experts’. The paper reviews the policy implications of the distinction between deprivation and poverty, and discusses two principal approaches to empirical methods of establishing ‘consensual’ measures of poverty: the income proxy method and the deprivation indicator method. The paper also distinguishes sociologically-based poverty lines from politically-based social security scales, outlining some important aspects of the theoretical and methodological relations between them.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , April 1987 , pp. 183 - 211
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abel-Smith, B. and Townsend, P. (1965), The Poor and the Poorest, Bell, London.Google Scholar
Atkinson, A.B., Corlyon, J., Maynard, A.K., Sutherland, H. and Trinder, C. (1981), ‘Poverty in York: A Reanalysis of Rowntree's 1950 Survey’, Bulletin of Economic Research, 33, 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beveridge, W. (1942), Social Insurance and Allied Services. Cmd 6404, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, J., Mitchell, D. and Morgan, J. (1987). ‘Evaluating Adequacy: The Potential of Budget Standards,’ Journal of Social Policy, 16:2, 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, A. (1961), Social Thought and Social Action: A Study of the Work of Seebohm Rowntree, Longman, London.Google Scholar
Charles, N. and Kerr, M. (1986), ‘Eating Properly, The Family and State Benefit’, Sociology, 20:3, 412–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colasanto, D., Kapteyn, A. and Van der Gaag, J. (1984), ‘Two Subjective Definitions of Poverty: results from the Wisconsin Basic Needs Study’ Journal of Human Resources, 19:1, 127–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desai, M. (1981), ‘Is Poverty a Matter of Taste? An econometric comment on the Townsend-Piachaud debate’, mimeo.Google Scholar
Desai, M. (1986), ‘Drawing the Line: on defining the poverty threshold’ in Golding, P. (ed.), Excluding the Poor, Child Poverty Action Group, London.Google Scholar
Goedhart, T., Halberstadt, V., Kapteyn, A. and van Praag, B. (1977), ‘The Poverty Line: concept and measurement’. Journal of Human Resources, 12:4, 503–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapteyn, A., Van de Geer, S. and van de Stadt, H. (1984), ‘The Impact of Changes in Income and Family Composition on Subjective Measures of Well-Being’, mimeo to be published in David, M. and Smeeding, T. (eds), Horizontal Equity, Uncertainty and Economic Well-Being, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Mack, J. and Lansley, S. (1985), Poor Britain, George Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
New Society (1986), Editorial 78:1245, p.3.Google Scholar
O'Higgins, M. (1980a and 1980b), ‘Poverty in Europe—The Subjective Assessment of Poverty Lines: An Evaluation’, mimeo in two parts, University of Bath.Google Scholar
Orwell, G. (1975), ‘Looking Back on the Spanish War’, in Homage to Catalonia, Penguin, Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
Piachaud, D. (1979), The Cost of a Child, Child Poverty Action Group, London.Google Scholar
Piachaud, D. (1981a), Children and Poverty, Child Poverty Action Group, London.Google Scholar
Piachaud, D. (1981b), ‘Peter Townsend and the Holy Grail’, New Society, 57:982, 419–21.Google Scholar
Riffault, H. and Rabier, J-R. (1977), The Perception of Poverty in Europe, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.Google Scholar
Rowntree, B.S. (1901), Poverty—A Study of Town Life, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
Rowntree, B.S. and Kendall, M. (1913), How the Labourer Lives, Thomas Nelson and Sons, London.Google Scholar
Runciman, W.G. (1966), Relative Deprivation and Social Justice, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
Sen, A. (1983), ‘Poor, Relatively Speaking’, Oxford Economic Papers, 35, 153–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Springborg, P. (1981), The Problem of Human Needs and the Critique of Civilisation, George Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
Townsend, P. (1962), ‘The Meaning of Poverty’, British Journal of Sociology, 18:3, 210–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, P. (1979), Poverty in the United Kingdom, Penguin, Harmondsworth.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, P. (1981), ‘Peter Townsend Replies’, New Society, 57:983, 477–78.Google Scholar
Townsend, P. (1985a), ‘A Sociological Approach to the Measurement of Poverty —a rejoinder to Professor Amartya Sen’, Oxford Economic Papers, 37, 659–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, P. (1985b), Review of Poor Britain (Mack and Lansley q.v.), Poverty, 61, 42–5.Google Scholar
Townsend, P. (1987), ‘Deprivation’, Journal of Social Policy, 16:2, 125–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titmuss, R.M. (1958), ‘The Social Division of Welfare’, in Essays on ‘the Welfare State’. George Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
van Praag, B., Goedhart, T. and Kapteyn, A. (1980), ‘The Poverty Line: A Pilot Survey in Europe’, Review of Economics and Statistics, 62, 461–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Praag, B., Hagenaars, A. and van Weeren, H. (1982), ‘Poverty in Europe’, Review of Income and Wealth, 28, 345–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veit-Wilson, J.H. (1981), ‘Cash or Services—A false dichotomy’, paper delivered to the ESRC Research Workshop on Social Security.Google Scholar
Veit-Wilson, J.H. (1985), Supplementary Benefit: What is to be done?, mimeo, Newcastle upon Tyne Polytechnic.Google Scholar
Veit-Wilson, J.H. (1986), ‘Paradigms of Poverty: A Rehabilitation of B.S. Rowntree’, Journal of Social Policy, 15:1, 69–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, R. (1987), ‘Consensual Approaches to the Definition of Poverty: Towards an Alternative Methodology’, Journal of Social Policy, 16:2, 213–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar