comparative context in relation to the implications of opting for a multidimensional or a undimensional approach to poverty measurement and the choice of geographical unit whether national or European. For some parts of our analysis we take full advantage of the range of data available in the EU-SILC and will place the Irish outcomes in the context of findings from the remaining twenty-five countries. For other purposes, we will focus on six countries specifically chosen to contextualising the Irish outcomes. The UK has been chosen because of the similarities in institutional arrangements and for obvious historical reasons. The remaining countries comprise a set of five smaller European countries that span a range of welfare regime arrangements namely Finland, Austria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic and Estonia. A coherent case can be made, as has been done by Callan et al. (2008), for comparing Irish poverty outcomes and institutional arrangements with the ‘best practice’ countries, such as those operating under Scandinavian welfare state arrangements. However, a compelling argument can also be made for taking a broader comparative perspective and focusing on a sample of countries whose performance Ireland might reasonably be expected to emulate. It also constitutes an advantage where we wish to consider the consequences of choosing between income and deprivation and national and European approaches. The strategy we adopt involves a compromise between taking as wide a comparative perspective as possible and alternatively focusing on key comparisons that we hope will be illuminating in relation to the Irish case.
The link to health is important in motivating an interest in fuel poverty. Liddell and Morris (2010), in a review of five recent large-scale studies in the UK and New Zealand, conclude that for adults the impact of tackling fuel poverty on physical health is relatively modest, but the impact on children is greater. Some recent research on Irish Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC) data has also found an association between fuel poverty and poor health (Institute for Public Health in Ireland (IPH), 2009, p. 8). Fuel poverty has also been linked to excess winter deaths (Hills, 2012; Healy, 2003). This paper is concerned with whether fuel poverty is distinct as indicated by the extent of its overlap with poverty and deprivation, particularly the national indicators of income poverty and basic deprivation (an indicator that captures an inability to afford basic goods and services). Are there people who will be missed if we focus on the national indicators of basic deprivation and do not consider fuel poverty as a separate dimension? If so, how large a group is this and is their profile different from that of people experiencing basic deprivation? 1
Abstract: In this paper we make use of the Irish component of the European Union Community Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) survey for 2004 in order to develop a measure of consistent poverty that overcomes some of the difficulties associated with the original indicators employed as targets in the Irish National Anti-Poverty Strategy. Our analysis leads us to propose a set of basic deprivation items that covers a broader range than the original set and provides a more reliable and valid measure. Consistent poverty measures incorporating the revised basic deprivation measure and adopting a threshold of two or more items provide similar estimates of levels of poverty to the original measure. The new broader measure is more strongly associated with current income, surrogates for permanent income and subjective economic pressures. Furthermore, by constructing a consistent poverty typology we are able to demonstrate that when we contrast those defined as poor when employing the new 11-item index but not the 8-item one with those for whom the opposite is true the former display a multidimensional deprivation profile that is substantially less favourable. The accumulated evidence supports the view that the revised consistent poverty measures, which combine a threshold of two or more items on the broader basic deprivation index comprising the 11-item index available in EU-SILC with income poverty, identify those exposed to generalised deprivation arising from lack of resources. This revised deprivation threshold taken together with being below 60 per cent of median income has now been adopted as the official consistent poverty measure in the Irish National Action Plan for Social Inclusion.
Poverty is defined by poverty line, i.e. the minimum income needed to be able to satisfy minimum basic needs. But income is not the only kind of deprivation people may suffer. Although income deprivation may give rise to several other kind of deprivations, people may suffer acute deprivation in many aspects of life even if they posses adequate command over commodities. It is the low level of well+being which is important rather than low level of income. Thus poverty should be viewed as the deprivation of basic capabilities rather than merely as low level of income. Poverty encompasses not only material deprivation (measured by income or consumption) but also many other forms of deprivations in different aspects of life such as unemployment, ill health, lack of education, vulnerability, powerlessness, social exclusion and so on. Dimensions of poverty included not only income poverty, but many others, for example, health, education, nutrition, sanitation, housing, political freedom, gender equality, vulnerability. According to the human development concept poverty is reflecting the lack of choices and opportunities in the key areas of education, health and command over resources, as well as voice related to democratic process.
Goodman and Myck (2005) highlight the benefit of a material deprivation measure over income, they state: ‘we can use material deprivation as a proxy for long-term financial status…’ and conclude ‘material deprivation seems to contain some additional information about a family’s financial well-being, over and above the information summarised in the level of current disposable income.’. This means that measuring deprivation will add to income measurement and can be more reliable in indicating long-term financial situations than a snapshot measure of income. Muffels (1993) described income and deprivation as separate concepts in poverty measurement and concluded that they should complement each other rather than act as substitutes for each other. Ringen (1988) promotes the twin criteria approach because this means that you exclude those with a low standard of consumption for reasons other than low income in your poverty definition. The combined approach also compensates for the inability of any one poverty measure to be truly perfect. Halleröd (1995) combined a direct and indirect measure of poverty to identify the ‘truly poor’. In this way, you do not incorrectly define as poor those who are deprived and not in low income or those who are in low income but not deprived. Halleröd argues that direct and indirect poverty measures should be combined to produce a more robust measure. By combining the two methods you drop those only identified as poor by one method, in this way all the poor have both low income and low living standards. This should also minimise the role that choice plays, as discussed in the previous section, in that those who have not chosen to obtain necessities and are thereby defined as deprived will only be classed as poor when they are also in low income.
On the other hand, poverty may jeopardize children’s nutrition to the extent that they no longer have any energy to engage in play. Furthermore, poverty may re- quire children to enter the work force at a young age. In both instances, poverty may have imposed a form of oc- cupational deprivation by constricting choices in occu- pations that are atypical for age and culture. Similarly, we can also define play deprivation as an occupational injustice that should be addressed through political means in order to assure more adequate distribution of basic opportunities within cultural experiences across a society. 8 Play in childhood has special meaning because
Sen's work has been inspiring not just because of its perceptive brilliance, but because it tacitly worked with a form of theory (call it 'policy theory') that generated potential avenues for both activism (protest, dissent) and policy making (problem definition, agenda setting, and deliberation). Deprivation was defined not simply the state of being without material sustenance, but an enforced reduction in ‘the human’ and common, global, aspirations for self-determination and self-actualisation. Human fulfilment and quality of life were re-cast as terms of economic analysis, and moreover Sen began attempting to articulate individuality in poverty – not in altruistic or welfarist ways, but in terms of capabilities (human propensities and capacity for action – in other words, the conditions for their empowerment). This came, of course, after the IMF and World Bank's structural adjustment programs of the 1970s and 1980s (on infrastructure), the subsequent theoretical framings of Welfare Economics, Basic Needs or Resource-based understandings of aid, growth and prosperity, along with rational-choice theory and growing free-market theories. The concept of individuality in relation to choice, action, and empowerment was critical.
This method in itself leaves entirely open the percentage cut-off to be applied, but it also faces a more fundamental problem. As pointed out some years ago by Ringen (1988), analysis of direct measures of deprivation suggests that low income is not in fact a reliable measure of exclusion arising from lack of resources. He illustrated this argument with data for Sweden, but the results were consistent with a variety of other studies showing that ownership of durables, for example, is not particularly low at the bottom of the income distribution (e.g. McGregor and Borooah, (1992) for the UK). The same conclusion was supported by analysis of a broader range of indicators for Irish households from the survey carried out by the ESRI in 1987. The first study based on this data (Callan et al., 1989) noted the extent to which deprivation scores varied across households at similar income levels. Deprivation scores for those below relative income poverty lines were higher than for other households on average, but significant numbers of the income-poor had relatively low deprivation scores. Subsequent regression analysis of the determinants of deprivation showed that, while current income does play a role, other indicators of longer-term resources and needs were also important (Nolan and Whelan, 1996a). When these variables were included, the ability to explain deprivation scores was greatly enhanced.
yet to come for the smooth implementation of several rural development and poverty eradication programme. Therefore, there is no question of reservation in the local administration and politics for the women who suffer most in the form of deprivation and lack of empowerment. In the present study the gender deprivation has been examined through the comparison of status of women, in terms of various social, economic and political indicators with that of their male counterpart. For the purpose of analysis, a primary survey was conducted during 2007-08 for the collection of information at the family level from eight villages in four blocks of two districts chosen by systematic multistage sampling procedure. First of all, two districts of the state namely Giridih and Dumka have been selected, one from comparatively developed and another from underdeveloped section of the districts. In the same way two blocks, Bengabad and Giridih from the district Giridih and two blocks Dumka and Ramgarh were selected, on the basis of records of District Census Handbook. Finally four villages are chosen from each of the two districts i.e., two from each of the selected blocks. The villages chosen from Giridih district are Baghra, Bhandaridih, Harsinggraidih and Parsatanr and other four villages of Dumka are Karikadar, Kusmaha, Murabahal and Purnia. Thereafter, a complete enumeration of households of the selected villages has been done and we observe a total of 1298 households combining all the eight villages of the selected districts namely Giridih and Dumka. Finally 50 households from each of the selected villages have been chosen as final sample units by the application of stratified random sampling method. Here, considering the Caste and Educational status of the head of the households, the stratification is done. The selection and distribution of sample on the basis of the sex of the household head is given in Table 1. The table itself shows a very few families having female household head.
Although the monetary approach has traditionally dominated the poverty literature, the concept and methodologies of ‗deprivation‘ is an emerging tool. The measurement of deprivation to study poverty commenced from the Relative Deprivation Approach (Townsend, 1979), followed by the consensual approach of the Majority Necessity Index (Mack and Lanseley, 1985) and the Proportional Deprivation Index (Halleröd, 1994). All these approaches and measures of deprivation have broadened the scope of the concept of poverty in terms of understanding the level of deprivat ion and assessing individuals‘ and households‘ standards of living. Deprivation indicators are useful in addressing some of the limitations of income measures of poverty. Firstly, they aim to measure living standards directly by looking at the enforced lack of a set of material goods or social activities. Secondly, deprivation indicators are better placed to measure persistence than contemporary income. This is because the lack of items is more likely to be associated with lack of resources over a prolonged period of time.
has long been stressed by scholars that individuals’ well-being is intrinsically multidimensional (e.g. Townsend 1979; Streeten 1981; Sen 1985) and there also now exists an increasing body of evidence in support of this view (e.g. Bradshaw et al 2007; Tomlinson et al 2008; Oroyemi et al 2009, Nolan and Whelan 2011). Consequently, societal measures of inequality and poverty should also re ß ect this multidimensionality. The poor themselves de Þ ne their well-being and deprivation as multifaceted, with both monetary and non-monetary dimensions (such as life expectancy, literacy, housing quality etc.) regarded as important (Narayan et al 2000). A richer understanding of the impact and longer-term implications of poverty and deprivation can, therefore, only be gained from careful consideration of these multiple dimensions. Others have argued that, especially for households with low resources, indicators of consumption may provide a better measure of living standards than current income which is likely to be under- recorded (Brewer and O’Dea 2012). Bel Þ eld et al (2015) make a similar argument with regard to material deprivation. They suggest that looking only at current income can be insuﬃcient when thinking about who is in ‘poverty’. Some groups with similar incomes seem to be much more materially deprived than others.
The ESRI research programme on poverty and deprivation involved a variety of analytic strategies that focused on exploring multidimensional poverty while avoiding the dilemmas presented by conventional applications of union or intersection approaches. These included using latent class analysis to identify those experiencing economic “vulnerability” in the sense of having a heightened level of risk of experiencing a distinctive risk profile in relation to income poverty, deprivation and economic stress, without necessarily experiencing multiple deprivation at a particular point in time (Whelan and Maître, 2005; Whelan et al., 2010; Watson et al. 2014). Here we focus on the potential of applying a recently developed multidimensional approach with clearly understood axiomatic properties; namely the one recently developed by Alkire and Foster (2007; 2011a; 2011b) which allows one to examine in a systematic way the implication of key measurement choices for levels and profiles of multidimensional poverty. This approach was originally framed in the economic development context but has been applied more recently to the countries of the EU, making use of newly available and richer comparative data on various aspects of deprivation from the EU-SILC.
Going back to Ringen (1988), the mismatch between deprivation and low income measured at a point in time has been highlighted as a concern with respect to reliance on income-based poverty measures. Kus et al. (2016) conducted a comparative European analysis of the correlation of household disposable equivalent income with a deprivation indicator that differed slightly from the Irish basic deprivation index. This correlation was substantially higher than the correlation between income and other deprivation dimensions such as consumption, housing, health and neighbourhood environment. However, even then the correlation was relatively modest and there is a clear tendency for correlations to be higher in less affluent countries. The level of association is influenced by national income levels and welfare regime membership. The findings suggest that the relationship is influenced by two main factors: the extent to which current disposable income serves as an adequate proxy for longer-term command over resources and the degree to which needs are satisfied predominantly through market mechanisms rather than welfare state interventions. Similar considerations apply in interpreting within-country variations in the strength of the association between basic deprivation and income across socio-economic groups. Current income proves to be a poorer indicator for older people, rural residents and the self-employed, and in particular farmers who are more likely to be asset rich (Nolan and Whelan, 1996). We should stress that the ESRI approach does not involve a sole reliance on deprivation measures. Income continues to be a crucial indicator and deprivation measures are of a limited value unless we can develop an understanding of the manner in which they are related to longer term accumulation and erosion of resources. It is perhaps worth keeping in mind that, viewed from a broader sociological perspective on social stratification, the fact that the complexities of such processes are far from being adequately captured by a single indicator relating to current disposable income is not surprising. Nolan and Whelan (2011: 108-119) review a range of evidence demonstrating that social class differentiation is significantly sharper where we focus on joint exposure to income poverty and deprivation and where we employ longitudinal rather than cross-sectional measures. 8 Goldthorpe (2010:735), in drawing attention to the value of the ESRI
In this paper we have sought to assess trends in levels and patterns of economic exclusion during an unprecedented period of economic growth in Ireland. Our most striking finding is that economic vulnerability, as we have defined and measured it, declined sharply over the period under examination. In 1994 the society was divided on an approximately two-thirds versus one- third basis into two sharply differentiated groups. The economically vulnerable were characterised by a substantially higher risk of income poverty but, more particularly, strikingly higher risks of basic deprivation and economic strain. By 2001 the size of the vulnerable class had fallen to one- ninth of the population and although the risk of income poverty had increased for that group both deprivation and economic strain levels had declined substantially even within the vulnerable class. Only in the case of economic strain was increased differentiation between the vulnerable and non- vulnerable observed. The sharp decline in absolute levels of economic exclusion and the absence of any uniform pattern of increased differentiation present a challenge to advocates of any straightforward thesis of economic polarisation.
Juvenile delinquency is not a new phenomenon but urban growth has made it worse by changing the structure of the society. The present study was designed to study the impact of urbanization on juvenile delinquency. This study aimed to find out the causes associated with urbanization that lead towards juvenile delinquency. Qualitative research design was used to study the impact of urbanization on juvenile delinquency. Case study method was employed to study the phenomenon of juvenile delinquency. Researcher used a purposive sampling technique and selected four young offenders from District Jail Muzaffarabad for data collection. Social learning theory supposes that adolescents develop the attitudes and skills necessary to become delinquents through their sustained contact with other lawbreakers. Juvenile’s exposure to delinquent attitudes and skills increases their tendency to also imitate such behaviours. Present study explored various causes of juvenile delinquency related with urbanization which are; deviant peer association, urban poverty and relative deprivation, lack of self-control and parental supervision and easy access to illegal means.
When designing regional growth strategies, cities should play an active role. Cities are uniquely placed to promote innovation by offering firms of all sizes the dynamic environments they need to succeed. They are at the forefront in the fight against climate change, creating new models of urban development with even higher resource efficiency. Last but not least, cities have a disproportionate share of social problems and poverty. As the Europe 2020 targets aims to increase employment and reduce poverty and exclusion, cities need to address urban deprivation and the disconnection from the labour market, especially in the EU-15.
Britain is at a crossroads of social development in terms of adopting effective measures to stop and then reverse the damaging structural trend which has increased poverty. During the 1980s incomes substantially diverged and in the late 1990s were continuing to diverge. The growth in poverty is the most critical social problem that Britain now faces. Problems of dislocation, insecurity, multiple deprivation, conflict, divided loyalties and divided activities all result. Major questions are being posed for the future of social cohesion. High rates of poverty and social exclusion have the effects of worsening health, education, skills in the changing labour market, relationships within the family, between ethnic groups and in society generally. The structural problem has to be addressed in a concerted national strategy. The construction of a scientific consensus - to improve measurement, explain severity and cause so that the right policies are selected, and show how the role of public and private services can be extended to underpin national life - is a key step in achieving the objectives set by the Government.
Our results suggest that about half of India ’ s population is multidimensional poor, and the estimate of multidimensional poor varies across states. States with a higher proportion of multidimensional poor also have lower access to improved drinking water, sanitation and cooking fuel. Focusing on states with a high prevalence of multidi- mensional poverty could help reduce household environmental deprivation of improved water, sanitation and cooking fuel. Poor sanitation is also associated with a vicious cir- cle of disease and linked to poverty and ignorance. It may be mentioned that improving sanitation has been accorded high priority in policy initiatives. The Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) conducted in rural areas from 1999 to 2012 was not very successful. Evaluation of the TSC suggests that the success of the program in selected districts was due to a comprehensive approach of demand creation for sanitation, development of technological solutions tailored to consumer preference and focusing on changing be- haviour (World Bank, Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) 2013). The Swasth Bharat Abhiyan (Clean India, Healthy India), initiated in 2014, aimed at eliminating open defecation, eradicating manual scavenging and generating awareness among citizens about sanitation and its linkages with public health. Intervention studies also showed modest reduction in open defecation owing to the TSC (Patil et al. 2014). Studies also suggest that a significant proportion of rural population revealed preference for open defecation even with access to toilets (Gupta et al. 2014). Creating public awareness to use toilet facility and increased monetary incentive to build toilets are suggested. This could be achieved by strong political will involving central, state and local governments and by involving the electronic and the print media.