葡萄牙的充足收入:两种估算方法的比较

J. Pereirinha, Elvira Pereira, Francisco Branco, D. Costa, M. I. Amaro
{"title":"葡萄牙的充足收入:两种估算方法的比较","authors":"J. Pereirinha, Elvira Pereira, Francisco Branco, D. Costa, M. I. Amaro","doi":"10.46692/9781447352976.021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines the adequate income in Portugal by comparing “Improving Poverty Reduction in Europe” (ImPRovE) and Minimum Income Standards (MIS). It discusses how the MIS approach places great emphasis on the results of the focus group discussions for establishing a consensual income standard for society, while the ImPRovE method puts experts in the driving seat and focus groups are largely confirmatory. It also provides a comparison of MIS and ImPRovE's food budget results. The chapter looks into the cost of the food basket for both a man and a woman, and a couple, that is found to be higher when using the ImPRovE methodology compared to MIS approach. It covers findings that highlight some of the main differences of MIS and ImPRovE in terms of food basket composition or quantities of different groups of food.","PeriodicalId":156584,"journal":{"name":"Minimum Income Standards and Reference Budgets","volume":"83 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Adequate income in Portugal: a comparison of two estimation methods\",\"authors\":\"J. Pereirinha, Elvira Pereira, Francisco Branco, D. Costa, M. I. Amaro\",\"doi\":\"10.46692/9781447352976.021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter examines the adequate income in Portugal by comparing “Improving Poverty Reduction in Europe” (ImPRovE) and Minimum Income Standards (MIS). It discusses how the MIS approach places great emphasis on the results of the focus group discussions for establishing a consensual income standard for society, while the ImPRovE method puts experts in the driving seat and focus groups are largely confirmatory. It also provides a comparison of MIS and ImPRovE's food budget results. The chapter looks into the cost of the food basket for both a man and a woman, and a couple, that is found to be higher when using the ImPRovE methodology compared to MIS approach. It covers findings that highlight some of the main differences of MIS and ImPRovE in terms of food basket composition or quantities of different groups of food.\",\"PeriodicalId\":156584,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Minimum Income Standards and Reference Budgets\",\"volume\":\"83 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Minimum Income Standards and Reference Budgets\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.46692/9781447352976.021\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minimum Income Standards and Reference Budgets","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46692/9781447352976.021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本章通过比较“改善欧洲减贫”(ImPRovE)和最低收入标准(MIS)来考察葡萄牙的适当收入。它讨论了MIS方法如何非常强调焦点小组讨论的结果,以建立社会的共识收入标准,而改进方法将专家放在驾驶座上,焦点小组在很大程度上是确认性的。它还提供了MIS和改进的食品预算结果的比较。本章研究了一个男人和一个女人以及一对夫妇的食物篮子的成本,发现使用改进方法比使用MIS方法更高。它涵盖的发现强调了MIS和ImPRovE在食物篮子组成或不同食物组数量方面的一些主要差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Adequate income in Portugal: a comparison of two estimation methods
This chapter examines the adequate income in Portugal by comparing “Improving Poverty Reduction in Europe” (ImPRovE) and Minimum Income Standards (MIS). It discusses how the MIS approach places great emphasis on the results of the focus group discussions for establishing a consensual income standard for society, while the ImPRovE method puts experts in the driving seat and focus groups are largely confirmatory. It also provides a comparison of MIS and ImPRovE's food budget results. The chapter looks into the cost of the food basket for both a man and a woman, and a couple, that is found to be higher when using the ImPRovE methodology compared to MIS approach. It covers findings that highlight some of the main differences of MIS and ImPRovE in terms of food basket composition or quantities of different groups of food.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信