Suchergebnisse

PurposePeter Townsend is one of the greatest social scientists of the twentieth century and best known for his pioneering research into poverty. This paper aims to revisit Townsend's early work discussing the measurement of poverty and attempts to operationalise his ideas for determining minimum income standards for healthy living.Design/methodology/approachThe article is based upon a secondary analysis of data taken from the UK Expenditure and Food Survey, a continuous cross‐sectional survey of household income, expenditure, and food consumption. Here, the sample has been restricted to an older population and the authors observe the relationship between household income and a healthy standard of living (indicated by diet) for people aged 60 years and over.FindingsMinimum income requirements for healthy living, for this population in the UK, are 37 per cent greater than the British state pension for single pensioners and 37 per cent for pensioner couples. It is also appreciably greater than the official minimum income safety net (after means testing), the pension credit guarantee.Practical implicationsObjective evidence‐based assessment of living standards are practicable but do not presently provide a basis for social policy in the UK or elsewhere apparently. Such assessment could provide a credible basis for helping to establish minimum income standards in official policy.Originality/valueRecent developments in the design of a British social survey have made it possible to operationalise Townsend's ideas for establishing minimum income standards over half a century after he proposed them.

The Minimum Income Standard (MIS), a method for constructing minimum household budgets based on public consensus, helps to operationalise Townsend's concept of a 'participatory social minimum'. Since 2008 MIS has tracked changes in the contents and cost of minimum baskets of goods and services. The article reflects on aspects of this research: the living standard that MIS represents, how consensus is reached and its record of providing consistent results over time. Understanding these features allows policy makers, practitioners and analysts to use the results of MIS appropriately, alongside other research, to benchmark the success of measures to promote adequate incomes.

Britain's New Labour government will spend some 133 billion this year on social protection for vulnerable groups with low incomes such as pensioners, disabled people, and working families with and without children. It also regularly reviews the National Minimum Wage for workers. Although its intentions are laudable, the government can be criticised for setting income floors with little or no grounded assessment of individual welfare requirements. Budget standards, originating in Rowntree's work on poverty at the close of the nineteenth century, offers an alternative for setting minimum incomes. Used by Beveridge in 1942 to rationalise the proposal for social security levels, they have largely been neglected by successive governments and were recently rejected by New Labour in its review of child poverty measures. Academic research, however, continues to identify non-arbitrary income thresholds. The transparency of evidence to maintain a defined standard of living along with the minimal personal costs involved are key attractions. The challenge remains to find a generally acceptable standard. How much emphasis should be given to scientific prescriptions for health compared to popular cultural practices captured by national surveys of poverty and social exclusion or agreed by the consensus of ordinary citizens in focus groups? This article considers the current debate within UK social policy.

Research into minimum income standards and reference budgets around the world is compared in this illuminating collection from leading academics in the field. From countries with long established research traditions to places where it is relatively new, contributors set out the different aims and objectives of investigations into the minimum needs and requirements of populations, and the historical contexts, theoretical frameworks and methodological issues that lie behind each approach. For policymakers, practitioners and social policy and poverty academics, this essential review of learnings to date and future prospects for research is all the more relevant in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, testing health and social protection systems around the globe.

AbstractRecent years have seen a growing interest in the creation of Minimum Income Standards (MIS). The impetus for this is the belief that governments that do not employ MIS to set income support can ultimately be persuaded to do so. Even as scholars recognize the many hurdles in the way of an MIS's acceptance, they nonetheless hope, and seem to expect, that the hurdles can be overcome and the political will be created to adopt empirical MIS that would allow a decent standard of living. This article, a case study analyzing the setting of income support levels in Israel over more than seven decades, questions this assumption. The analyses, anchored in Veit‐Wilson's notion of discourses, show that the absence of governmental MIS in Israel has not been incidental, but the outcome of repeated conscious decisions, anchored in the primacy of the asocial economistic discourse. This discourse, it shows, served as a strong disincentive to the adoption of governmental MIS, which would have required the government to justify its choice to set income support below that which was needed for a minimum standard of living.

AbstractIn many high-income countries, governments seek to ensure that households at least have sufficient incomes to afford basic essentials such as food and clothing, but also to help citizens reach socially acceptable living standards allowing full participation in society. Their success in doing so is commonly monitored in terms of how many citizens are below a poverty line set relative to median income, and by how far below it they fall (the 'poverty gap'). Yet the threshold below which this gap starts to be measured is arbitrary, begging the question of what level of low income needs addressing. A more ambitious measure, presented in this paper, considers the extent to which people fall short of a benchmark representing a socially agreed minimum standard. This 'low income gap' can be used to represent the distance a society has to go to eliminate income that is undesirably low. The paper presents the indicator, its meaning and some recent trends in the United Kingdom, where the methodology behind the indicator has been pioneered. The results demonstrate that this empirically derived benchmark has the potential to be of value in other countries, in assessing whether they are making progress in reducing low income.

Minimum Income Standard (MIS) research involves an innovative methodology that combines consensual decisions made through discussion by members of the public, supported by input from experts. MIS addresses questions about income adequacy, and in particular, what is the income that people need in order to reach a minimum socially acceptable standard of living. The first MIS for Britain was published in the UK in 2008, and in 2010 researchers from Japan and the UK began to collaborate on developing a comparable Minimum Income Standard for Japan. This article discusses the differences and similarities between the UK and Japanese MIS. It looks at the challenges of applying the methodology in a very different setting and compares the results of the research in the UK and in Japan. Although there are notable differences in the lists of goods and services that comprise the budgets, there are also some striking similarities. This research suggests that the MIS methodology offers an approach that can be used in different countries to inform discussions on contemporary living standards and societal norms, and to enable international comparisons to be drawn.

Research into minimum income standards and reference budgets around the world is compared in this illuminating collection from leading academics in the field. From countries with long established research traditions to places where it is relatively new, contributors set out the different aims and objectives of investigations into the minimum needs and requirements of populations, and the historical contexts, theoretical frameworks and methodological issues that lie behind each approach. For policymakers, practitioners and social policy and poverty academics, this essential review of learnings to date and future prospects for research is all the more relevant in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, testing health and social protection systems around the globe

AbstractEquivalence scales, used to compare incomes across household types, strongly influence which households have low reported income, affecting public policy priorities. Yet they draw on abstract, often dated evidence and arbitrary judgements, and on comparisons across the income distribution rather than focusing on minimum requirements. Budget standards provide more tangible comparisons of the minimum required by different household types. The Minimum Income Standard (MIS) method, now established in several countries, applies a common methodological framework for compiling budgets, based on public deliberations. This article draws for the first time on results across countries. In all of the four countries examined, it identifies an under-estimation by the OECD scale of the relative cost of children compared to adults, and, in three of the four, an under-estimation of the cost of singles compared to couples. This more systematically corroborates previous, dispersed evidence, and helps explain which specific expenditure categories influence these results. These results have high policy relevance, showing greater proportions of low income households to contain children than standard income distribution data. While no single equivalence scale can be universally accurate, making use of evidence based directly on benchmarks such as MIS can help inform public priorities in tackling low income.