Making ends meet: revisiting the consensual income approach to measuring poverty

Peter Saunders, Melissa Wong
{"title":"Making ends meet: revisiting the consensual income approach to measuring poverty","authors":"Peter Saunders, Melissa Wong","doi":"10.1332/17598273y2023d000000010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Conventional (income-based) poverty measures have been criticised for being narrowly focused and failing to provide evidence that those identified as poor have an unacceptable standard of living. The consensual approach to deprivation addresses both weaknesses by drawing on community perceptions of what items are essential for all and establishing that those who do not have them cannot afford them. In contrast, the consensual income approach maintains the role of income as a key determinant of poverty but uses community perceptions of how much is needed to make ends meet to set a poverty line. Although perceptions vary widely, it is possible to estimate the income level at which people with that income would say that their current income is just enough to make ends meet. This article re-examines this approach drawing on recent developments in poverty research and using new data for Australia. The consensual poverty lines produced are shown to have similarities with those used in existing poverty studies, but also to exhibit important differences. An overlap measure is developed that includes those in consensual poverty who also indicate that their current income is not enough for them to make ends meet. The poverty rates produced by this overlap measure is shown to align with those based on the 50 per cent of median-income OECD equivalised poverty line used in most Australian studies. It is argued that the consensual income approach has the potential to advance our understanding of poverty beyond that provided by conventional income-based measures.","PeriodicalId":505062,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Poverty and Social Justice","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Poverty and Social Justice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/17598273y2023d000000010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Conventional (income-based) poverty measures have been criticised for being narrowly focused and failing to provide evidence that those identified as poor have an unacceptable standard of living. The consensual approach to deprivation addresses both weaknesses by drawing on community perceptions of what items are essential for all and establishing that those who do not have them cannot afford them. In contrast, the consensual income approach maintains the role of income as a key determinant of poverty but uses community perceptions of how much is needed to make ends meet to set a poverty line. Although perceptions vary widely, it is possible to estimate the income level at which people with that income would say that their current income is just enough to make ends meet. This article re-examines this approach drawing on recent developments in poverty research and using new data for Australia. The consensual poverty lines produced are shown to have similarities with those used in existing poverty studies, but also to exhibit important differences. An overlap measure is developed that includes those in consensual poverty who also indicate that their current income is not enough for them to make ends meet. The poverty rates produced by this overlap measure is shown to align with those based on the 50 per cent of median-income OECD equivalised poverty line used in most Australian studies. It is argued that the consensual income approach has the potential to advance our understanding of poverty beyond that provided by conventional income-based measures.
入不敷出:重新审视衡量贫困的共识收入法
传统的(以收入为基础的)贫困衡量标准受到了批评,因为它们关注的范围太窄,而且无法提供证据证明那些被认定为贫困的人的生活水平是不可接受的。通过社区对哪些物品对所有人来说都是必需品的看法,并确定那些没有这些物品的人买不起这些物品,以协商一致的方法来解决贫困问题。与此相反,收入共识法坚持收入是决定贫困的关键因素,但利用社区对维持生计所需金额的认识来设定贫困线。尽管人们的看法千差万别,但仍有可能估算出收入水平,在这一水平上,有收入的人会说他们目前的收入刚刚够维持生计。本文借鉴贫困研究的最新进展,并使用澳大利亚的新数据,重新审视了这一方法。得出的一致贫困线与现有贫困研究中使用的贫困线有相似之处,但也表现出重要的差异。研究还开发了一种重叠测量方法,将那些也表示其当前收入不足以维持生计的一致贫困人口包括在内。研究表明,这种重叠测量法得出的贫困率与大多数澳大利亚研究中使用的经合组织等值贫困线(相当于收入中位数的 50%)一致。研究认为,协商一致的收入方法有可能使我们对贫困的认识超越传统的基于收入的衡量方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信