Facts and figures about UK taxes, benefits and public spending.
Income distribution, poverty and inequality.
Analysing government fiscal forecasts and tax and spending.
Analysis of the fiscal choices an independent Scotland would face.
Case studies that give a flavour of the areas where IFS research has an impact on society.
Reforming the tax system for the 21st century.
A peer-reviewed quarterly journal publishing articles by academics and practitioners.
|
Type: Journal Articles Authors: Steve McKay ISSN: Print: 0143-5671 Online: 1475-5890
Published in: Fiscal Studies, Vol. 25, No. 2, June 2004
Volume, issue, pages: Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 201-223
Keywords: poverty; deprivation indicators
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 Ö through preference rather than poverty. Simply checking whether people lack items for any reason provides results empirically as reliable, but subject to similar criticisms. Search |

