Suchergebnisse

In combating poverty, whether or not to design a universal program or a targeted program has been a perpetual dilemma. The objective of this paper is to conduct an international comparison of the 'universality' and 'targeting' of social security systems. The paper presents an outline of methodologies used in assessing the universality and categorical targeting of the poor. Two methodologies are employed. The first builds on the work of Beckerman and examines how positive and negative net transfers are distributed using micro-data from eleven countries; the second employs a logistic regression method to estimate the effects of the initial poverty gap and categorical status of a household on its poverty outcome. The data used are drawn from the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) database and a micro-data from the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan.

Establishing what constitutes 'need' has been a long-standing tradition in empirical investigations of poverty. In their pioneering Poor Britain study, Joanna Mack and Stewart Lansley (1985) developed the 'consensual' or 'socially perceived deprivation' approach. This sought the views of ordinary people (as opposed to academics or professional experts) in determining the necessities of life. Their approach subsequently provided the basis for further UK poverty surveys, as well as studies in other counties in Europe, Australasia, Africa and Asia. Despite this international proliferation, comparative analyses examining public perceptions of need across different societies and cultures remain sparse. This article presents findings from the first Japanese–UK comparative study based on nationally representative surveys informed by Mack and Lansley's approach. It compares the necessities of life in the two societies, examining differences as well as common socially perceived needs, and explores two possible explanations accounting for the variations found. In doing this, the article seeks to contribute to international debates on public attitudes towards the necessities of life.

AbstractThis paper compares the well‐being of children and older people within and between Australia and Japan using as of indicators of disadvantage income poverty rates, deprivation (defined as an enforced lack of socially perceived necessities) and consistent poverty (the combination of poverty and deprivation). Information on these three indicators is derived from two national surveys that were used to generate a set of comparable measures. The results indicate that conclusions about the extent of disadvantage and the ranking of children and older people within each country (and between them) are heavily dependent on the choice of indicator. The deprivation results confirm that the approach can be applied comparatively and is capable of producing credible and robust findings. Whether viewed in isolation or in combination with conventional poverty measures, the results indicate that the main factor that determines the risk of deprivation is living alone (or as a sole parent) rather than age or the presence of children. The results also imply that the findings and implications of studies of policy impact will be sensitive to the choice of indicator used to identify disadvantage.

AbstractEast Asian (EA) social welfare has been described as productivist, where social policies are subordinate to economic development. However, EA comparative studies often focus on a few select social policies and seldom examine welfare programs as a bundle. We contribute to the depiction of divergent features of EA safety nets by exploring welfare content (generosity, coverage, protective vs. productive, and work incentives) and welfare outcomes (poverty reduction and income redistribution) for lower‐income populations in the largest city in mainland China, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. We collected model family (MF) data and analyzed the data through descriptive statistics and regression models. We found that Taiwan and Hong Kong, followed by Japan, have more generous programs for reducing poverty, while Korea focuses on productive programs; Singapore offers wide coverage and strong work incentives for low‐income families yet lags behind in generosity; and China appears to be a laggard in welfare provision in the region. Our findings reveal heterogeneity within EA welfare systems, and our synthesis of welfare features using MF data offers a promising, innovative strategy for conducting comparative research in regions with limited comparable data.

Research into minimum income standards and reference budgets around the world is compared in this illuminating collection from leading academics in the field. From countries with long established research traditions to places where it is relatively new, contributors set out the different aims and objectives of investigations into the minimum needs and requirements of populations, and the historical contexts, theoretical frameworks and methodological issues that lie behind each approach. For policymakers, practitioners and social policy and poverty academics, this essential review of learnings to date and future prospects for research is all the more relevant in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, testing health and social protection systems around the globe