IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wop/sprcdp/0014.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Some Australian Evidence on the Consensual Approach to Poverty Measurement

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Saunders
  • Bruce Bradbury

Abstract

Estimates of poverty in Australia have relied exclusively on the Henderson poverty line, despite extensive criticism of its relevance to contemporary Australian conditions. This paper analyses data from Morgan Gallup Poll (MGP) surveys on the minimum income required by an Australian family of four to keep in health and live decently in order to assess community views on minimum income levels required in Australia. Analysis of how the average response to the MGP question has changed over the last four decades suggests that community views of adequate minimum income levels are adjusted upwards in line with average income levels. This evidence suggests that Australians see poverty more in relative than absolute terms. Data from the July 1987 MGP survey are then used to derive a consensual poverty line based on responses to the minimum income question. The resulting poverty line is well above the Henderson poverty line. The survey data are then used to provide an estimate of poverty among families of four in July 1987 and to investigate some aspects of how family needs vary with family circumstances.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Saunders & Bruce Bradbury, 1989. "Some Australian Evidence on the Consensual Approach to Poverty Measurement," Discussion Papers 0014, University of New South Wales, Social Policy Research Centre.
    • Handle: RePEc:wop:sprcdp:0014
    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.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Peter Saunders & Cathy Thomson & Ceri Evans, 2000. "Social Change and Social Policy: Results from a Survey of Public Opinion," Discussion Papers 00106, University of New South Wales, Social Policy Research Centre.
    2. Peter Saunders, 1998. "Using Budget Standards to Assess the Well-Being of Families," Discussion Papers 0093, University of New South Wales, Social Policy Research Centre.
    3. Tony Eardley & Peter Saunders & Ceri Evans, 2000. "Community Attitudes Towards Unemployment, Activity Testing and Mutual Obligation," Discussion Papers 00107, University of New South Wales, Social Policy Research Centre.
    4. Bruce Bradbury, 1999. "Tax Theory and Targeting: A Survey," Discussion Papers 00100, University of New South Wales, Social Policy Research Centre.

    More about this item

    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:wop:sprcdp:0014. 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: Thomas Krichel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/spnswau.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.