首页> 外文期刊>Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology >Deprived or not deprived? Comparing the measured extent of material deprivation using the UK government's and the Poverty and Social Exclusion surveys' method of calculating material deprivation
【24h】

Deprived or not deprived? Comparing the measured extent of material deprivation using the UK government's and the Poverty and Social Exclusion surveys' method of calculating material deprivation

机译:被剥夺还是未被剥夺?使用英国政府和贫困与社会排斥调查的计算物质剥夺方法来比较测得的物质剥夺程度

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Poverty can either be measured directly, through standards of living such as material deprivation, or indirectly through resources available, usually income. Research shows that the optimum measure of poverty combines these methods, a fact that the UK government took cognisance of in its tripartite measure of child poverty. For use in a birth cohort study, two methods of calculating material deprivation were tested: the method used by the UK government taken from the Family Resources Survey (FRS), and the methods used in the Poverty and Social Exclusion (PSE) study at Bristol University. Results show that the former measure, compared to the latter measure, underestimates the depth and extent of material deprivation among families with young children in Scotland.
机译:贫困可以通过生活水平(例如物质匮乏)直接衡量,也可以通过可用资源(通常是收入)间接衡量。研究表明,最佳的贫困衡量方法将这些方法结合在一起,这一事实英国政府在三重衡量儿童贫困方面都予以了重视。为了用于出生队列研究,测试了两种计算物质剥夺的方法:英国政府从家庭资源调查(FRS)中使用的方法,以及在布里斯托尔的贫困与社会排斥(PSE)研究中使用的方法。大学。结果表明,与后一种措施相比,前一种措施低估了苏格兰有幼儿家庭的物质剥夺的深度和程度。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号