Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Social Policy > Poverty > Flashcards

Poverty Flashcards

1
Q

In what ways is social exclusion distinctive from the concept of poverty?

A
  1. Broader/more comprehensive/multi-dimensional
  2. Dynamic
  3. Concerned w/social relations
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Argument that dynamic poverty analysis advancements NOT due to social exclusion?

A

Le Grand et al (2002)

  1. dynamic analysis associated w/social exclusion due to IT improvements and new panel/longitudinal data
  2. E.g. new British household panel survey in 1991
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is useful about dynamic nature of social exclusion?

A

Laderchi et al (2003)

  1. Not dynamic nature of analysis per se that’s useful
  2. What is useful is focus on underlying processes leading to disadvantage and its persistence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Example of policy area in which relational focus of social exclusion gives distinctive policy recommendations?

A

Social housing

  1. Poverty approach – focus on distribution and hence neutral between 10,000 council houses in 1 place VS 1,000 in 10 places
  2. Social exclusion - consider possible geographical exclusion and aim to promote social mixing/integration
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Evidence of lack of overlap between those suffering from social exclusion and poverty?

A

Burchardt (2000)

  1. No dimension of social exclusion that a majority of 1/5th were excluded on
  2. Most of poorest 1/5th not excluded on all dimensions of social exclusion
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Evidence of multi-dimensionality of social exclusion amongst the poor?

A

Burchardt (2000)

  1. no dimension of social exclusion that a majority of the poorest 1/5th were excluded on
  2. Most of poorest 1/5th not excluded on all dimensions of social exclusion
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Key problem with the operationalisation of the concept of social exclusion?

A

Operationalisation of social exclusion inevitably treats it as state/outcome rather than process (hence losing its distinctive value)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Example of operationalisation of social exclusion

A

Robinson and Oppenheim (1998)

  1. Propose 4 indicators of social exclusion:
    (i) % population below 50% average income
    (ii) unemployment rate
    (iii) % failing to get 20 GCSE points
    (iv) mortality ratio of social classes
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Key elements of New Labour’s child poverty strategy?

A

Waldfogel (2010)

  1. Make work pay (e.g. working families tax credit, NMW)
  2. Support families w/children (e.g. increased child benefit, affordable childcare)
  3. Invest in children (e.g. universal nursery places, parental leave rights extended, Sure Start centres in low-income areas)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

4 key elements of Conservative’s child poverty strategy?

A

Move to tackle underlying root causes:

  1. Support disadvantaged children (e.g. pupil premium, free childcare for disadvantaged 2-year olds extended)
  2. Change behaviour (e.g. troubled families initiative)
  3. Encourage work (e.g. universal credit)
  4. Benefit cuts (e.g. overall cap, bedroom tax)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Evidence of falls in absolute child poverty under New Labour?

A

1997-2010:

Absolute poverty decreased from 29% to 11%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Evidence of falls in relative child poverty under New Labour?

A

1997-2010:

Relative poverty decreased 1997-2010 from 27% to 20%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Evidence of falls in relative and absolute child poverty under New Labour?

A
  1. Absolute poverty ↓ 1997-2010 from 29% to 11%

2. Relative poverty ↓ 1997-2010 from 27% to 20%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Evidence to suggest that falls in child poverty under New Labour translated into real improvements in children’s lives and well-being?

A

Dickens (2011)

Falls in material deprivation index suggest child poverty improvements under New Labour translated into real improvements in children’s lives and well-being

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Indirect evidence of success of New Labour’s child poverty strategy?

A

Dickens (2011)

Fall in worklessness among households w/children, particularly dramatic in single parent households

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Laderchi et al (2003)

A

USEFULNESS OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION CONCEPT

  1. Not dynamic nature of analysis per se that’s useful
  2. What is useful is focus on underlying processes leading to disadvantage and its persistence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Muffels (1992)

A

PERSISTENCE OF POVERTY

3-year poverty study:

  1. In any given year, 10% in poverty
  2. 20% of population in poverty for 1 year of study
  3. Only 0.5% in poverty for whole period
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Muffels (1992)

…..-year poverty study:

  1. In any given year, …..% in poverty
  2. …..% of population in poverty for 1 year of study
  3. Only …..% in poverty for whole period
A

Muffels (1992)

3-year poverty study:

  1. In any given year, 10% in poverty
  2. 20% of population in poverty for 1 year of study
  3. Only 0.5% in poverty for whole period
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Evidence which shows how social exclusion’s focus on underlying processes of disadvantage and its persistence is useful

A

Muffels (1992)

3-year poverty study:

(i) In any given year, 10% in poverty
(ii) 20% of population in poverty for 1 year of study
(iii) Only 0.5% in poverty for whole period

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Evidence that, for many, poverty is transitory BUT for few, it is persistent

A

Muffels (1992)

3-year poverty study:

(i) In any given year, 10% in poverty
(ii) 20% of population in poverty for 1 year of study
(iii) Only 0.5% in poverty for whole period

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Burchardt (2000)

A

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION

  1. No dimension of social exclusion that a majority of 1/5th were excluded on
  2. Most of poorest 1/5th not excluded on all dimensions of social exclusion
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Possible example of someone that is in poverty but not socially excluded?

A
  1. Unemployed not usually socially isolated

2. Problem – social networks quite segregated and tend to involve other unemployed people

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q
  1. Robinson and Oppenheim (1998)

2. How do they succeed? Where do they fail?

A

EXAMPLE OF OPERATIONALISATION OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION

  1. Propose 4 indicators of social exclusion:
    (i) % population below 50% average income
    (ii) unemployment rate
    (iii) % failing to get 20 GCSE points
    (iv) mortality ratio of social classes

2a. Succeed in providing multi-dimensionality
2b. Fail to focus on processes over time

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Levitas (2006)

A

SOCIAL EXCLUSION NOT USEFUL

  1. Social exclusion simply a fashionable way to talk about poverty and its ‘distinctive’ elements not unique
  2. Example - focus on social relations featured in Townsend’s 1979 work on relative deprivation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Counter-argument to Levitas (2006) that social exclusion brings nothing unique that hasn’t featured in previous work

A
  1. Whilst no single element unique, so previous poverty research incorporated all elements together
  2. Importance change of emphasis and approach (Atkinson 1998)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Atkinson (1998)

A

Social exclusion = important chance of emphasis and approach

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Waldfogel (2010)

A

Key elements of New Labour’s child poverty strategy

(i) Make work pay (e.g. working families tax credit, NMW)
(ii) Support families w/children (e.g. increased child benefit, affordable childcare)
(iii) Invest in children (e.g. universal nursery places, parental leave rights extended, Sure Start centres in low-income areas)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

How has child poverty been measured under New Labour, Coalition and Conservatives?

A
  1. New Labour - focused on income as poverty measure (both relative and absolute)
  2. Coalition - moved to broader focus, w/addition of measures relating to:
    (i) NEETs
    (ii) Workless households
    (iii) Other life chances indicators
  3. Conservatives - targets abandoned and replaced w/measures of:
    (i) worklessness
    (ii) educational attainment
    (iii) other life chances measures
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Under New Labour 1997-2010:

  1. Relative child poverty decreased from …..% to …..%
  2. Absolute child poverty decreased from …..% to …..%
A

Under New Labour 1997-2010:

  1. Relative child poverty decreased from 27% to 20%
  2. Absolute child poverty decreased from 29% to 11%
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Dickens (2011)

A
  1. Falls in material deprivation index suggest child poverty improvements under New Labour translated into real improvements in children’s lives and well-being
  2. Fall in worklessness among households w/children, particularly dramatic in single parent households
  3. Decomposition/counter-factual analysis:
    (i) W/o reforms, relative child poverty would have risen to 29%, not fallen to 20%
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q
  1. What were New Labour’s child poverty targets?
  2. Did they meet them?
  3. Why/why not?
A
  1. Aim to reduce relative child poverty to 10% and absolute child poverty to 5%
  2. No
  3. Targets were v. ambitious
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Were falls in worklessness among households with children under New Labour due to policy?

A

Brewer et al (2006)

  1. Economic growth would have increased employment anyway
  2. Consensus - New Labour’s reforms played major role in extent of reductions
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Brewer et al (2006)

A

FALLS IN WORKLESSNESS AMONG HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN UNDER NL

  1. Economic growth would have increased employment anyway
  2. Consensus - New Labour’s reforms played major role in extent of reductions
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Evidence that New Labour’s child poverty strategy was effective in international context

A

UNICEF (2010)

(i) International comparison showed that New Labour achieved 1 of the largest reductions in child poverty following deliberate government intervention

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

UNICEF (2010)

A

CHILD POVERTY REDUCTION UNDER NEW LABOUR

International comparison showed that New Labour achieved 1 of the largest reductions in child poverty following deliberate government intervention

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Empirical analysis of impact of New Labour’s child poverty reforms

A

Dickens (2011)

Decomposition/counter-factual analysis:
(i) W/o reforms, relative child poverty would have risen to 29%, not fallen to 20%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Empirical analysis of the net effect of the Coalition’s policies on child poverty

A

IFS

Net effect = increase in absolute and relative child poverty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Evidence that benefits cap impacted families with children?

A

Stewart and Obolenskaya (2016)

Over 90% of households impacted by benefits cap were families w/children

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

….. and ….. (2016)

…..% of households impacted by benefits cap were families w/children

A

Stewart and Obolenskaya (2016)

Over 90% of households impacted by benefits cap were families w/children

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

What % of households impacted by the benefits cap were families w/children? (Stewart and Obolenskaya 2016)

A

Over 90%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Stewart and Obolenskaya (2016)

A
  1. Over 90% of households impacted by benefits cap were families w/children
  2. Spending on early education, childcare and Sure Start fell by ~1/5th per child 2010-14
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

What % of Coalition’s deficit reduction was achieved via spending cuts vs tax increases?

A

80% achieved via spending cuts

20% via tax increases

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

….% of the Coalition’s deficit reduction was achieved by spending cuts, and …..% via tax rises

A

80% of the Coalition’s deficit reduction was achieved by spending cuts, and 20% via tax rises

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Key reasons that net effect of Coalition’s policies were to increase absolute and relative child poverty (IFS)?

A
  1. Recession and economic downturn

2. Cuts to social security and benefits had major effect

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Evidence that spending on early education and childcare fell during the Coalition

A

Stewart and Obolenskaya (2016)

Spending on early education, childcare and Sure Start fell by ~1/5th per child 2010-14

46
Q

Examples of benefits cuts that particularly hurt families with children?

A
  1. Overall benefits cap
  2. Child tax credit cut
  3. Tightening of housing benefit
47
Q

Key issues in analysing the problem of poverty?

A
  1. Household as unit of analysis
  2. Time period/static measures
  3. Geographical unit of analysis
48
Q
  1. Key assumption underpinning use of household as unit of analysis in poverty studies?
  2. Potential problem with this?
A
  1. Assumption that resources shared evenly within households

2. Gender inequalities may mean that resources not shared evenly

49
Q

Evidence that gender inequalities impact poverty of women?

A
  1. Institute for Social and Economic Research (2008)
    (i) Mothers particularly likely to sacrifice own living standards to protect family, putting children and partner’s needs above their own
  2. Poverty and Social Exclusion Millennium Survey
    (i) In low-income households, ~1/3 females said their partners lacked fewer items than they did
50
Q

Institute for Social and Economic Research (2008)

A

Mothers particularly likely to sacrifice own living standards to protect family, putting children and partner’s needs above their own

51
Q

Poverty and Social Exclusion Millennium Survey

A

In low-income households, ~1/3 females said their partners lacked fewer items than they did

52
Q

Poverty and Social Exclusion Millennium Survey

In low-income households, ….. of females said their partners lacked fewer items than they did

A

Poverty and Social Exclusion Millennium Survey

In low-income households, ~1/3 females said their partners lacked fewer items than they did

53
Q

Example of how labelling of benefits can impact gender inequalities

A

Benefit for ‘jobseeker’ (primary breadwinner role still typically perceived to be occupied by man) vs ‘children’

54
Q

How might universal credit exacerbate gender inequalities?

A

Bennett and Daly (2014)

  1. Payment into 1 account for couples absorbs separate housing and child payments into single UC
  2. Joint account for universal credit doesn’t guarantee equal access or control between genders
  3. May result in power imbalances; women may suffer
55
Q

Bennett and Daly (2014)

A
  1. Joint account for universal credit doesn’t guarantee equal access or control between genders
  2. May result in power imbalances; women may suffer
56
Q
  1. Joint account for universal credit doesn’t guarantee equal access or control between genders
  2. May result in power imbalances; women may suffer
A

Bennett and Daly (2014)

57
Q

Bryan et al (2004)

A

Temporary low income doesn’t significantly impact material deprivation

58
Q

Evidence that temporary low income doesn’t significantly impact material deprivation

A

Bryan et al (2004)

59
Q

Hills (2014)

A

‘TRANSIENT’ POVERTY MAY HAVE PERSISTENT IMPACT

  1. Dynamic poverty analysis cautions that seemingly transient poverty may actually be persistent in impact
  2. e.g. seasonal work may lead to constant fluctuations just above and below poverty line, but doesn’t mean each instance of falling below is only transient (and hence not problematic)
60
Q

Example of how seemingly transient poverty might have persistent impact? Example?

A

Hills (2014)

  1. Seasonal work may lead to constant fluctuations just above and below poverty line, but doesn’t mean each instance of falling below is only transient
61
Q

Why is it problematic to use single poverty measure across whole country?

A
  1. Costs of living vary greatly
  2. Income below poverty line of £x p.a. may lead to significant material deprivation in London, yet represent significantly more purchasing power in other parts of UK
62
Q

Conceptual problem with use of nation as reference group when analysing relative poverty?

A
  1. If problem of relative poverty is lack of participation in activities that are customary/socially approved, may make sense to restrict reference group more locally?
  2. What impacts people’s experience of relative poverty is comparison w/local population, not country as a whole
63
Q

Townsend’s (1979) definition of (relative) poverty?

A

When resources so below those of average person that effectively excluded from ordinary living patterns and activities

64
Q

Possible way to resolve seeming tension between concepts of absolute and relative poverty?

A

CAPABILITIES APPROACH

  1. Absolute approach wrt capabilities translates into relative approach wrt commodities, resources and income
  2. Absolute capabilities (e.g. avoiding shame from failure to meet social conventions) may require different relative commodities in different societies
65
Q

Lister (2004)

A
  1. Distinguishes between concepts, definitions and measures of poverty

2a. Concept = broad meaning of poverty
2b. Definition = more precise ways of dividing people in poverty/not
2c. Measure = operationalising definitions w/, for example, cut-off point in £

66
Q

How does Lister (2004) distinguish between concepts, definitions and measures of poverty?

A

1a. Concept = broad meaning of poverty
1b. Definition = more precise ways of dividing people in poverty/not
1c. Measure = operationalising definitions w/, for example, cut-off point in £

67
Q

Reason for + against idea that a smartphone is a requirement to participate in society today

A
  1. FOR - universal credit requires you to apply digitally and must be online on journal to check jobcentre messages
  2. AGAINST - lack of smartphone may indicate personal preference
68
Q

Different ideological discourses on poverty distinguished by Levitas

A
  1. RED = redistributive egalitarian discourse
    (i) Poor lack resources
  2. SID = social integrationist discourse
    (ii) Poor lack work
  3. MUD = moral underclass discourse
    (i) Poor lack morals
69
Q

Marx et al (2013)

A

REPLICATE KORPI & PALME (1998)

  1. Replicate Korpi and Palme (1998), adding more recent data and wider universe of countries
  2. Results changed due to additional Southern European countries (where universality high, but level of redistribution low)
  3. Relationship between targeting and redistributive impact weakened over time due to change in nature of targeting, which now often designed to encourage work (which attracts widespread support):
    (i) Original 1985 data - relationship holds
    (ii) 1995 - relationship weakened significantly
    (iii) 2005 - relationship disappeared
  4. Sensitive to methodology (e.g. universality associated with less redistributive impact if occupational pensions classified as social transfer, not market income)
  5. More targeting associated with lower generosity, although the most redistributive countries have ‘targeting within universalism’
    (i) targeting not same as means-testing (e.g. universal pension may be highly targeted if old that receive it are mostly poor)
70
Q

Counter-evidence to Korpi and Palme’s (1988) finding of the ‘paradox of redistribution’ (that higher levels of targeting associated w/lower levels of redistribution)?

A

Marx et al (2013)

  1. Replicate Korpi and Palme (1998), adding more recent data and wider universe of countries
  2. Results changed due to additional Southern European countries (where universality high, but level of redistribution low)
  3. Relationship between targeting and redistributive impact weakened over time due to change in nature of targeting, which now often designed to encourage work (which attracts widespread support):
    (i) Original 1985 data - relationship holds
    (ii) 1995 - relationship weakened significantly
    (iii) 2005 - relationship disappeared
  4. Sensitive to methodology (e.g. universality associated with less redistributive impact if occupational pensions classified as social transfer, not market income)
  5. More targeting associated with lower generosity, although the most redistributive countries have ‘targeting within universalism’
    (i) targeting not same as means-testing (e.g. universal pension may be highly targeted if old that receive it are mostly poor)
71
Q

What is the paradox of redistribution?

A

Korpi and Palme (1998)

Finding that higher levels of targeting associated with lower levels of redistribution

72
Q

Nolan and Whelan (1996)

A
  1. Risk with broad definitions of poverty = lose distinctive notion
  2. Key = inability to meed needs DUE TO LACK OF RESOURCES
73
Q
  1. Risk with broad definitions of poverty = lose distinctive notion
  2. Key = inability to meed needs DUE TO LACK OF RESOURCES
A

Nolan and Whelan (1996)

74
Q

Sen (1992)

A
  1. Poverty = failure of basic capabilities to reach certain minimally acceptable levels (i.e. about ability to do x)
  2. Income or resources don’t intrinsically matter, but only insofar as they allow people to do things
  3. Not important that people lack certain goods/items, if that is a free choice
75
Q
  1. Poverty = failure of basic capabilities to reach certain minimally acceptable levels
  2. Income or resources don’t intrinsically matter, but only insofar as they allow people to do things
A

Sen (1992)

76
Q
  1. What is Sen’s (1992) definition of poverty?

2. Problem?

A
  1. Poverty = failure of basic capabilities to reach certain minimally acceptable levels
  2. Problem - does it make sense to describe capability deprivation that has nothing to do with income as poverty? (e.g. constrained by illness or disability)
77
Q

Dowler et al (2001)

A
  1. Food = social + physical need
  2. Even physiological needs cannot be divorced from social/historical/cultural context
    (i) ‘Minimum’ dietary requirements changed drastically
    (ii) ‘Basic’ shelter varies by climate & temperature
78
Q
  1. Food = social + physical need
  2. Even physiological needs cannot be divorced from social/historical/cultural context
    (i) ‘Minimum’ dietary requirements changed drastically
    (ii) ‘Basic’ shelter varies by climate & temperature
A

Dowler et al (2001)

79
Q

Key insights of capability approach for poverty analysis

A
  1. Focus on non-voluntary deprivations (i.e. ability = what matters, not deprivation per se)
  2. Lack of resources not the only constraint of interest
  3. Emphasises multi-dimensional nature of analysis
80
Q

USEFULNESS OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION CONCEPT

  1. Not dynamic nature of analysis per se that’s useful
  2. What is useful is focus on underlying processes leading to disadvantage and its persistence
A

Laderchi et al (2003)

81
Q
  1. Dynamic analysis associated w/social exclusion due to IT improvements and new panel/longitudinal data
  2. E.g. new British household panel survey in 1991
A

Le Grand et al (2002)

82
Q

Propose 4 indicators of social exclusion:

(i) % population below 50% average income
(ii) unemployment rate
(iii) % failing to get 20 GCSE points
(iv) mortality ratio of social classes

A

Robinson and Oppenheim (1998)

83
Q

Falls in material deprivation index suggest child poverty improvements under New Labour translated into real improvements in children’s lives and well-being

A

Dickens (2011)

84
Q

Study of poverty from 1985 to 88:

  1. In any given year, 10% in poverty
  2. 20% of population in poverty for 1 year of study
  3. Only 0.5% in poverty for whole period
A

Muffels (1992)

85
Q
  1. Social exclusion simply a fashionable way to talk about poverty and its ‘distinctive’ elements not unique
  2. Example - focus on social relations featured in Townsend’s 1979 work on relative deprivation
A

Levitas (2006)

86
Q

Social exclusion = important chance of emphasis and approach

A

Atkinson (1998)

87
Q

Key elements of New Labour’s child poverty strategy

(i) Make work pay (e.g. working families tax credit, NMW)
(ii) Support families w/children (e.g. increased child benefit, affordable childcare)
(iii) Invest in children (e.g. universal nursery places, parental leave rights extended, Sure Start centres in low-income areas)

A

Waldfogel (2010)

88
Q

CHILD POVERTY REDUCTIONS UNDER NEW LABOUR

  1. Economic growth would have increased employment anyway
  2. Consensus - New Labour’s reforms played major role in extent of reductions
A

Brewer et al (2006)

89
Q

CHILD POVERTY REDUCTION UNDER NEW LABOUR

International comparison showed that New Labour achieved 1 of the largest reductions in child poverty following deliberate government intervention

A

UNICEF (2010)

90
Q

Over 90% of households impacted by benefits cap were families w/children

A

Stewart and Obolenskaya (2016)

91
Q

Spending on early education, childcare and Sure Start fell by ~1/5th per child 2010-14

A

Stewart and Obolenskaya (2016)

92
Q

Seasonal work may lead to constant fluctuations just above and below poverty line, but doesn’t mean each instance of falling below is only transient

A

Hills (2014)

93
Q

De Haan et al (1997)

A

Social exclusion only distinctive if we adopt a very narrow definition of poverty

94
Q

Social exclusion only distinctive if we adopt a very narrow definition of poverty

A

De Haan et al (1997)

95
Q

What distinguishes the idea of ‘poverty’?

A

Inability to meet needs DUE TO LACK OF RESOURCES

96
Q

How do Hills et al (2002) define social exclusion?

A

Lack of participation in following key activities in society:

  1. Consumption
  2. Production
  3. Political engagement
  4. Social interaction
97
Q

Social exclusion = lack of participation in following key activities in society:

  1. Consumption
  2. Production
  3. Political engagement
  4. Social interaction
A

Hills et al (2002)

98
Q

Hills et al (2002)

A

Social exclusion = lack of participation in following key activities in society:

  1. Consumption
  2. Production
  3. Political engagement
  4. Social interaction
99
Q

Example of how dynamic social exclusion focus might draw different conclusion to static poverty indicator?

A
  1. Oxford students have low incomes
  2. But clearly not socially excluded, but instead plugged into valuable social networks and have excellent future prospects
100
Q

Example of social exclusion’s focus on being cut off from participation in society

A
  1. Increasing incidence of lonely pensioners

2. May not necessarily be income-poor, but often cut off from participation in society

101
Q

Example of important step forward in allowing dynamic social policy analyses?

A

Creation of the British Household Panel Survey in 1991

102
Q

What resources do poverty approaches usually focus on?

A
  1. Income

2. Expenditure

103
Q

Arguments FOR household as unit of poverty analysis

A
  1. People pool resources and share living standards
  2. May get misleading view if household resources ignored
  3. Data more readily available
104
Q

Why is the distinction between relative and absolute poverty not clear?

A
  1. Both about resources in relation to needs
    (i) Question = which needs matter?
  2. No clear distinction between absolute physiological subsistence needs and relative social needs
105
Q

Falkingham and Hills (1995)

A
  • between 2/3rd and ¾ of UK welfare spending = life-cycle redistribution
  • 1/3rd or less = direct poverty relief
106
Q
  • between 2/3rd and ¾ of UK welfare spending = life-cycle redistribution
  • 1/3rd or less = direct poverty relief
A

Falkingham and Hills (1995)

107
Q

Sen’s capabilities approach is seen as a way to reconcile the tension between absolute and relative poverty approaches…

what are problems with this?

A
  1. Previously absolute poverty referred to subsistence/survival, but here Sen refers to absolute capabilities like avoiding social shame
  2. Disagreement over which capabilities everyone should have
108
Q

How is relative poverty defined in the UK?

A

Below 60% of median income in a given year

109
Q

Jenkins and Rigg (2001)

A

Income poverty - 9 years of panel data:

(i) Of all who experienced any poverty, ~30% fell below income threshold in only 1 year
(ii) 8% lived continuously in poverty for 7-9 years

110
Q

Income poverty - 9 years of panel data:

(i) Of all who experienced any poverty, ~30% fell below income threshold in only 1 year
(ii) 8% lived continuously in poverty for 7-9 years

A

Jenkins and Rigg (2001)

111
Q

….. and ….. (…..)

Income poverty - ….. years of panel data:

(i) Of all who experienced any poverty, …..% fell below income threshold in only 1 year
(ii) …..% lived continuously in poverty for ….. years

A

Jenkins and Rigg (2001)

Income poverty - 9 years of panel data:

(i) Of all who experienced any poverty, ~30% fell below income threshold in only 1 year
(ii) 8% lived continuously in poverty for 7-9 years

Social Policy (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions