评估住房福利和平等的能力方法:概念上的明显差异但实际上的不明确差异?

IF 2.5 3区 经济学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Boram Kimhur
{"title":"评估住房福利和平等的能力方法:概念上的明显差异但实际上的不明确差异?","authors":"Boram Kimhur","doi":"10.1080/14036096.2022.2149617","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study empirically examines the difference of the capability approach to evaluating well-being and equality in housing, with data from the Netherlands. Conventionally, well-being/inequality in housing have been evaluated by measures of economic/material means for housing or satisfaction. In theory, these evaluation approaches overlook some important normative concerns, and applying the capability approach – evaluating the capabilities to reside in ways a person values – can compensate for such weakness. However, its practical difference appears as yet contested. This study reviews the sources of such contesting views, and clarifies them by comparing the capability-oriented and conventional measures of housing deprivation in terms of their identification of deprived groups that welfare policies are supposed to address. The results showed that the overlap between the deprived groups was rather limited, revealing blind spots in the current welfare policies for housing and the informational benefits of capability-oriented evaluation. This study adds implications for measurement methods.","PeriodicalId":47433,"journal":{"name":"Housing Theory & Society","volume":"40 1","pages":"192 - 218"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Capability Approach to Evaluating well-being and Equality in Housing: Clear Conceptual Difference but Unclear Practical Difference?\",\"authors\":\"Boram Kimhur\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14036096.2022.2149617\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This study empirically examines the difference of the capability approach to evaluating well-being and equality in housing, with data from the Netherlands. Conventionally, well-being/inequality in housing have been evaluated by measures of economic/material means for housing or satisfaction. In theory, these evaluation approaches overlook some important normative concerns, and applying the capability approach – evaluating the capabilities to reside in ways a person values – can compensate for such weakness. However, its practical difference appears as yet contested. This study reviews the sources of such contesting views, and clarifies them by comparing the capability-oriented and conventional measures of housing deprivation in terms of their identification of deprived groups that welfare policies are supposed to address. The results showed that the overlap between the deprived groups was rather limited, revealing blind spots in the current welfare policies for housing and the informational benefits of capability-oriented evaluation. This study adds implications for measurement methods.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47433,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Housing Theory & Society\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"192 - 218\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Housing Theory & Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2022.2149617\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Housing Theory & Society","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2022.2149617","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要本研究采用荷兰的数据,实证检验了能力方法在评估住房幸福感和平等性方面的差异。按照惯例,住房方面的福利/不平等是通过衡量住房或满意度的经济/物质手段来评估的。理论上,这些评估方法忽略了一些重要的规范问题,而应用能力方法——以一个人的价值观评估居住能力——可以弥补这种弱点。然而,其实际差异似乎还存在争议。这项研究回顾了这种有争议的观点的来源,并通过比较以能力为导向的住房剥夺措施和传统的住房剥夺手段,从福利政策应该解决的贫困群体的识别方面,对其进行了澄清。结果表明,贫困群体之间的重叠相当有限,揭示了当前住房福利政策和以能力为导向的评估的信息效益方面的盲点。这项研究增加了对测量方法的启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Capability Approach to Evaluating well-being and Equality in Housing: Clear Conceptual Difference but Unclear Practical Difference?
ABSTRACT This study empirically examines the difference of the capability approach to evaluating well-being and equality in housing, with data from the Netherlands. Conventionally, well-being/inequality in housing have been evaluated by measures of economic/material means for housing or satisfaction. In theory, these evaluation approaches overlook some important normative concerns, and applying the capability approach – evaluating the capabilities to reside in ways a person values – can compensate for such weakness. However, its practical difference appears as yet contested. This study reviews the sources of such contesting views, and clarifies them by comparing the capability-oriented and conventional measures of housing deprivation in terms of their identification of deprived groups that welfare policies are supposed to address. The results showed that the overlap between the deprived groups was rather limited, revealing blind spots in the current welfare policies for housing and the informational benefits of capability-oriented evaluation. This study adds implications for measurement methods.
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
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
6.50%
发文量
28
×
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