Search

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4932.2009.00565.x Byline: PETER SAUNDERS, YUVISTHI NAIDOO Keywords: I32; I38; H55 Abstract: Controversy over the setting of poverty lines and its narrow focus on income has undermined the influence of poverty research on policy. The deprivation approach overcomes these limitations by identifying deprivation as an inability to afford items that receive majority support for being essential. This paper estimates the incidence of deprivation and compares the results with those produced using a conventional poverty framework. The results confirm overseas findings by showing that the groups most deprived differ from those with the highest poverty rates and that there is a low degree of overlap between income poverty and deprivation. Older people show up as faring better under the deprivation approach, while working-age individuals and families fare worse and the relative position of the most highly disadvantaged groups are worse in terms of deprivation than in terms of poverty. Deprivation also provides a clearer differentiation between those who can and cannot afford specific necessities than a classification based on low income, and is also shown to vary systematically with several indicators of subjective well-being. Estimates of consistent poverty that combine low income with deprivation are shown to differ from conventional (income-based) poverty rates, and provide the basis for future poverty measures. Article note: Peter Saunders, Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia. Email: P.Saunders@unsw.edu.au

Abstract: The limitations of income‐based poverty lines are widely acknowledged, but Australia lags behind many other countries in implementing new measures of social disadvantage based on the deprivation approach. A new suite of questions included in wave 14 of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey allows the deprivation approach to be applied. This article describes the advantages of the deprivation approach and shows that while the income and deprivation approaches can produce similar overall results, the circumstances of some sub‐groups vary greatly according to which measure is used. A measure based on deprivation alone and/or a combined measure would be an important complement to conventional income‐based poverty rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]