Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T07:22:01.878Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consensual Approaches to the Definition of Poverty: Towards an Alternative Methodology*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

Robert Walker
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

‘Consensual’ methods, which seek to establish poverty lines by reference to the views of society as a whole, are an important recent development. Three variants are recognised: those which require the public to estimate an adequate minimum income; those which ask people to specify a list of necessary items and those which ask what level of benefits the public is prepared to fund. This paper suggests that attempts to operationalise the consensual approach have been frustrated by their reliance on survey methodology. Some thoughts are offered on a possible methodology, based on the use of qualitative techniques, which would first explore consensus on the definition of poverty and then, if appropriate, seek directly to determine a socially approved budget standard.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , April 1987 , pp. 213 - 226
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

Atkinson, A.B. (1985). How Should We Measure Poverty? Some conceptual issues, ESRC Programme on Taxation. Incentives and the Distribution of Income, Discussion Paper 82, 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
Broadway, R. and Bruce, N. (1984), Welfare Economics, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Cook, T. and Reichardt, C. (1979), Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluative Research, Sage, Beverly Hills.Google Scholar
Cooke, K. and Baldwin, S. (1984), How Much Is Enough? Family Policy Studies Centre, London.Google Scholar
Crosland, C.A. (1964), The Future of Socialism, Jonathan Cape, London.Google Scholar
Danziger, S. et al. , (1983). The Direct Measurement of Welfare Levels, IRP Discussion Paper 721, University of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
Glaser, B.G. (1978), Theoretical Sensitivity, The Sociological Press, M.U. Valley.Google Scholar
Golding, P. and Middleton, S. (1982), Images of Welfare, Martin Robertson, Oxford.Google Scholar
ISG (1985), Basic Rate and Basket of Goods and Services for Social Assistance Benefit Payments, Institut fur Sozialforschung und Gesellschaftspolitik, Cologne.Google Scholar
Jowell, R., Witherspoon, S. and Brook, L. (1986), British Social Attitudes: the 1986 Survey, Gower, Aldershot.Google Scholar
Mack, J. and Lansley, S. (1985), Poor Britain, George Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
Morris, L. and Ruane, S. (1986), Household Finance Management and Labour Market Behaviour, Work and Employment Research Unit, University of Durham.Google Scholar
O'Higgins, M. (1980), Poverty in Europe—the subjective assessment of poverty lines: An evaluation, Parts 1 and 2, Mimeo, University of Bath.Google Scholar
Pahl, J. (1980), ‘Patterns of Money Management Within Marriage’, Journal of Social Policy, 9:3, 313–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pahl, J. (forthcoming). ‘Earning, Sharing, Spending: Married Couples and their Money’, in Walker, R. and Parker, G. (eds), Money Matters: Studies in Financial Welfare, Sage, London.Google Scholar
Piachaud, D. (1974), ‘Attitudes to Pensions’, Journal of Social Policy, 3:2, 137–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piachaud, D. (1987), ‘Problems in the Definition and Measurement of Poverty’, Journal of Social Policy, 16:2, 147–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riffault, H. and Rabier, J-R. (1977), The Perception of Poverty in Europe, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.Google Scholar
Schlackman Research Organisation (1978), Report on Research on Public Attitudes Towards the Supplementary Benefit Scheme, Mimeo, London.Google Scholar
Taylor-Gooby, P. (1985), Public Opinion, Ideology and State Welfare, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
Townsend, P. (1979), Poverty in the United Kingdom, Penguin, Harmondsworth.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Praag, B., Hagenaars, A. and van Weeren, J. (1980), Poverty in Europe, Centre for Research in Public Economics, University of Leyden.Google Scholar
van Praag, B., Hagenaars, A. and van Weeren, J. (1982), ‘Poverty in Europe’, Review of Income and Wealth, 28, 345–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veit-Wilson, J.H. (1987), ‘Consensual Approaches to Poverty Lines and Social Security’, Journal of Social Policy, 16:2, 183–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, P. (1979), Poverty in the United Kingdom, Penguin, Harmondsworth.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, R. (1981), Attitudes to Public Expenditure, paper given at the Annual Conference of the Social Administration Association, Cambridge, July.Google Scholar
Walker, R. (ed.,) (1985), Applied Qualitative Research, Gower, Aldershot.Google Scholar
Walker, R. (1986), ‘A Place for Qualitative Research in Government’, Survey Methods Newsletter, Winter 1985/86, 11–12, 15.Google Scholar
Walker, R. and Bradshaw, J. (1985). Approaches to Assessing the Adequacy of Supplementary Benefit, Social Policy Research Unit, Working Paper 236, University of York.Google Scholar
Walker, R., Hedges, A. and Massey, S. (1987), Housing Benefit: Discussion about Reform, Housing Centre Trust, London.Google Scholar