Abstract
ABSTRACTThe 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.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Public Administration,Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
Cited by
55 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. The Care Subsidy to the Labor Market: Rethinking the Care Diamond;Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society;2024-08-27
2. The revolution next door;The British Journal of Sociology;2024-07-08
3. Bibliography;Breaking the Poverty Code;2023-07-24
4. Subjective Poverty;Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research;2023
5. Families and Food in Hard Times;2021-05-24