IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ifs/fistud/v25y2004i2p201-223.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Poverty or preference: what do 'consensual deprivation indicators' really mean?

Author

Listed:
  • Steve McKay

Abstract

Consensual deprivation indicators assume that there is a broad consensus on what goods/services families should be able to afford, and that an inability to afford those items can measure deprivation. Using data from two British surveys in 1999, this paper makes two arguments. First, there is only limited agreement about which items families should be able to afford. Secondly, different social groups are more (or less) likely to say the absence of a 'necessity' is due to choice. Families who cannot afford two or more 'necessities' invariably have a number of 'nonnecessities', often many. Their patterns of preferences (and spending) are not typical and they are choosing to buy other goods - through preference rather than poverty. Simply checking whether people lack items for any reason provides results empirically as reliable, but subject to similar criticisms.

Suggested Citation

  • Steve McKay, 2004. "Poverty or preference: what do 'consensual deprivation indicators' really mean?," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 25(2), pages 201-223, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:ifs:fistud:v:25:y:2004:i:2:p:201-223
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    poverty; deprivation indicators;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ifs:fistud:v:25:y:2004:i:2:p:201-223. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emma Hyman (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifsssuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.