Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:54:06.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is Low Spending or Low Income a Better Indicator of Whether or Not a Household is Poor: Some Results From the 1985 Family Expenditure Survey*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

P.P.L. McGregor  and
V.K. Borooah
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The identification of the poor in this paper follows that of most contemporary applied work and consists of comparing a scaler indicator of welfare with a predetermined minimum level. The data is provided by the 1985 Family Expenditure Survey. Two measures of welfare are developed, one based on income which reflects the entitlement analysis of poverty and the other on expenditure, reflecting the standard of living. Households ranked very low by expenditure are considerably less likely to be ranked highly by income than vice versa. Further doubt on the rankings suggested by the income measure is provided by ownership of consumer durables. The expenditure measure suggests that the number of poor retired individuals is more than three times that implied by the income measure. The instability of the latter measure suggests that more confidence can be placed on assertions based on evidence employing the expenditure measure.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , January 1992 , pp. 53 - 69
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

Abel-Smith, B. and Townsend, P. (1965), The Poor and the Poorest: A New Analysis of the Ministry of Labour's Family Expenditure Surveys of 1953–4 and 1960 Bell. London.Google Scholar
Atkinson, A.B. (1989). Poverty and Social Security, Harvester Wheatsheaf, London.Google Scholar
Atkinson, A.B. and Micklewright, J. (1983), ‘On the reliability of income data in the Family Expenditure Survey. 1970–77’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 146, 33–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradbury, B. (1989), ‘Family size equivalence scale and survey evaluations of income and well-being’, Journal of Social Policy 18:3. 383–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradshaw, J., Cooke, K. and Godfrey, C. (1983), ‘The impact of unemployment on the living standards of families’. Journal of Social Policy 12:4, 433–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callan, T., Nolan, B., Whelan, B.J., Hannan, D.F. and Creighton, S. (1989), ‘Poverty, income and welfare in Ireland’, Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin.Google Scholar
Deaton, A. and Muellbauer, J. (1980), Economics and Consumer Behaviour, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desai, M. and Shah, A. (1988), ‘An econometrics approach to the measurement of poverty’, Oxford Economic Papers, 40:3, 505–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department of Employment (1986), ‘Family Expenditure Survey’, Report for 1985 giving the results for the United Kingdom, HMSO.Google Scholar
Department of Social Security, ‘Low income families. 1985’. DHSS, 1988.Google Scholar
Fiegehen, G.C., Lansley, P.S. and Smith, A.D. (1977), Poverty and Progress in Britain. 1953–73, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Johnson, P. and Webb, S. (1989). ‘Counting people with low incomes: the impact of recent changes in official statistics’. Fiscal Studies, 10:4, 66–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, J.A., Keen, M.J. and Morris, C.N. (1984), ‘Estimating consumption from expenditure data’, Journal of Public Economics, 23, 169–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemsley, W.F.F., Redpath, R.U. and Holmes, M. (1980), ‘Family expenditure survey handbook’, Office of Populations, Censuses and Surveys Division, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Layard, R., Piachaud, D. and Stewart, M. (1978), ‘The causes of poverty’, Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth, Background Paper No. 5, HMSO. London.Google Scholar
Lewis, G.W. and Ulph, D.T. (1988), ‘Poverty, inequality and welfare’, Economic Journal (supplement), 98, 117–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millar, J. (1985). ‘The incomes and expenditures of supplementary benefit recipients’. Poverty, 60, 41–44.Google Scholar
Millar, J. and Glendinning, C. (1989). ‘Gender and poverty’, Journal of Social Policy, 18:3, 363–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, N. and Preston, I. (1986). ‘Inequality, poverty and the redistribution of income’, Bulletin of Economic Research, 38, 277–344.Google Scholar
Pahl, J. (1988), ‘Earning, sharing, spending: married couples and their money’, in Walker, R. and Parker, G. (eds). Money Matters: Incomes, Wealth and Financial Welfare Sage, London.Google Scholar
Piachaud, D. (1982), The Distribution and Redistribution of Incomes Bedford Square Press, London.Google Scholar
Piachaud, D. (1987), ‘Problems in the definition and measurement of poverty’, Journal of Social Policy, 16:2, 147–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, R.A. and Wales, T.J. (1979), ‘Welfare comparisons and equivalence scales’, American Economic Review, 69:2, 216–21.Google Scholar
Prais, S.J. and Houthakker, H.S. (1971), The Analysis of Family Budgets, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Pudney, S. (1989), Modelling Individual Choice: The Econometrics of Corners, Kinks and Holes Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Ringen, S. (1988). ‘Direct and indirect measures of poverty’, Journal of Social Policy, 17:3, 351–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowntree, B.S. (1901), Poverty: a Study of Town Life, Longmans, London.Google Scholar
Sen, A.K. (1976), ‘Poverty: an ordinal approach to measurement’, Econometrics, 44, 219–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, P. (1970). ‘Measures of income and expenditure as criteria of poverty’, in Townsend, P. (ed.), The Concept of Poverty, Heinemann, London.Google Scholar
Townsend, P. (1979), Poverty in the United Kingdom: A Survey of Household Resources and Standards of Living, Allen Lane, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar