(3.230.143.40) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/04/19 05:37
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:何華欽
研究生(外文):Huachin Ho
論文名稱:台灣的貧窮趨勢:界定、測量與指標應用
論文名稱(外文):The Poverty Trends in Taiwan: Definition, Measurement and their Applications
指導教授:王德睦王德睦引用關係
指導教授(外文):Temu Wang
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:國立中正大學
系所名稱:社會福利系
學門:社會服務學門
學類:社會工作學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2004
畢業學年度:92
語文別:中文
論文頁數:135
中文關鍵詞:貧窮測量貧窮門檻預算標準法貧窮人口組成貧窮趨勢貧窮強度貧窮不均度SST指標
外文關鍵詞:poverty measurementpoverty thresholdbudget standard approachpoverty population compositionpoverty trendsintensity of povertyinequality of povertySST indicator
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:8
  • 點閱點閱:685
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:8
論文摘要
貧窮測量是一個運用極廣,且相當實用的方法。一方面它可以作為不同人口群、家戶、區域、時間的經濟福祉之比較,以做為檢視經濟發展與公共政策成效之評量基準;另一方面它亦可當做政策與方案之服務對象範圍界定之參考,可讓我們知道社會中還有那些弱勢者,仍需政府之介入來滿足其需求。
傳統上對社會整體貧窮狀況的測量皆是以貧窮率為指標。然此一指標的適當性自1970年代起已開始被學界廣泛的質疑。因為貧窮率僅能表達社會中貧窮人口比例,但卻無法由此指標得知,貧窮人口到底有多窮、窮人所得分配的不均度等訊息。自Sen(1976)以降許多研究者開始發展適當的貧窮指標,這些指標雖然仍在發展中,亦未有唯一受大家所公認最佳的指標存在。但多年發展之下,他們形成的共識是一個好的貧窮指標應至少包含三種訊息:一是貧窮率、一是貧窮的強度、一是貧窮的不均度。這些指標所指向的意涵,正可提供福利政策制訂所需的資訊。
本文的研究目的即在檢討既存的貧窮指標,找尋適宜的指標,用以描述臺灣近幾十年來的貧窮趨勢,及此趨勢變化之成因。要達到這個目的,
本文檢討相關文獻中貧窮測量方式,並以台灣的資料對較為合宜或資料可及的方式做適當的模擬。在可取得的次級資料的條件與政策的施行便利的限制條件下,本文使用Citro and Michael(1995)的FCSU預算乘數法來設定四口之家(兩大人兩小孩)預算,並考慮家戶規模、調整合適的均等比來設定貧窮門檻。
本文以SST指標來測量台灣的貧窮趨勢。由1986年開始至2002年,台灣的貧窮趨勢呈現W型曲線,1994年與2000年是W型曲線的最低點,貧窮程度較低;而1986年、1996年與2001年是W型曲線的最高點,貧窮程度較高,尤其以2001年的貧窮程度最高。SST多元貧窮指標是由貧窮率、貧窮強度、貧窮不均度三指標所構成,經由取對數後的變化幅度來看,貧窮率的變化較大、貧窮強度的變化較小,而貧窮不均度取對數後的數值接近一固定常數,由此發現貧窮率仍是一個較具影響力的指標,而貧窮不均度幾乎不影響SST數值的變化,此發現與Osberg(2000)的跨國貧窮研究結論相同。
進一步分析發現,小戶量家戶是較容易落入貧窮的類型,其中又以單人家戶的貧窮應受重視,這些單人家戶以男性老年戶長為主,經濟資源又匱乏,因此在社會救助上應重視此類型的家戶。近年來單人家戶貧窮的現象,由原來以老人戶長為主的現象,漸漸增加了中高齡戶長的比例,中高齡戶長的年齡層介於45歲至65歲之間,這類型人口的特性是轉業不易,在經濟轉型與不景氣的情況下,容易失業、落入貧窮,因此中高齡人口的輔導就業問題成為政策上需要關注的一群。除了單人家戶外,單親家戶也頗值得重視,單親家戶雖然貧戶比例較低,但是近年來家戶戶數不斷增加,頗值得注意其後續引發的社會現象。

Dissertation Abstract
Poverty measurement is a very practical and widely used method: it has been used as an indicator for the economic well-being of population groups, family, region and time period. Furthermore, it can be and has been used as the basis to evaluate economic development and to determine the effectiveness of public policy; and at the same time, it is also used as a reference to delineate the scope of needed services in policy and agenda formulation, and , therefore, provided us a clearer picture in identifying the disadvantaged groups that would need governmental intervention to meet their basic needs.
Poverty rates have been used as the indicators in measuring the over all poverty conditions in a society in the past. However, the appropriateness in using poverty rates as the indicators began to be questioned by academic circle in the 70s. This is due in part to the fact that poverty rates can only reflect the proportions of the population in entering into poverty. It fails to show the severity of poverty and the differential distribution of poverty among others. Beginning with Amartya Sen, scholars and researchers have been hard at work in developing appropriate poverty indices. However, to this day, a universally acceptable measure has yet to be developed. Over the years, however, some consensuses began to emerge. It is generally agreed by researchers that a good measure of poverty indicator should include three basic information: (1) poverty incidences; (2) intensity of poverty; and (3) differential distribution of poverty. The dynamics and the interrelationships among these three variables can provide very useful information for developing social welfare policy in a society.
This research aims to examine the established poverty indicators, and look for appropriate ones so as to interpret the recent poverty trend and its causes in Taiwan. On reviewing the poverty measurement in relative literatures, this thesis properly simulates the accessible data in Taiwan. Within the limitation of availability of secondary data, and the convenience of policy promotion, I adopt FCSU method from Citro and Michael, to position the budget for a family with two adults and two children. Meanwhile, family size and proper equivalence scale adjustment are additionally set up for determining the poverty threshold.
SST indicators are used to measure poverty trend in Taiwan, which presents as W curve from 1986 to 2002. The year 1994 and 2000 respectively are located at the lowest on the W curve, which means the lower poverty level, while the year 1986, 1996, and 2001 are on the peaks, which shows the higher poverty level. Especially the year 2001 is the highest among peaks. SST multi-indicators are composed of poverty rate, Intensity of poverty, and inequality of poverty. After logarithm, the change on rate is comparatively bigger; the intensity becomes smaller, and the inequality gets close to a stable constant. Therefore, the poverty rate is still regarded as more influential indicator, while the inequality of poverty hardly affects the SST value. This result if identical to Osberg(2000)’s poverty studies on cross countries.
The analysis furthers finds that the small family size falls easily into the poverty category, among which, the single person households should be regarded, especially the male senior headed households. They are short of economic resources, and whom the social aids should go to. For recent years, the poverty phenomenon has spread to the middle-aged group who are between age 45 to 65. This population cannot easily transfer their occupation, getting more unemployed and falls into poverty during the economic gloom. Thus, how to assist the middle-aged group for jobs becomes the policy’s next focus. Besides, due to the rising number of household, though poverty rate is relatively low, the single person households and the social sequences are worth attention as well.

目錄
第一章、緒論 1
第一節、研究緣起 1
第二節、官訂貧窮率之探討 3
第三節、貧窮率指標的使用與限制 8
第四節、多元貧窮指標的創建與政策意涵 10
第五節、研究目的 12
第六節、資料來源與章節安排 13
第二章、貧窮測量的取向 15
第一節、貧窮定義 15
第二節、貧窮測量的研究取向 16
(一)預算標準取向 17
(二)行為取向 22
(三)社會共識取向 25
(四)所得/消費分配百分位法 28
第三節、貧窮測量的限制與整合趨勢 30
第三章、測量變項的考量 35
第一節、貧窮指標的使用 36
第二節、相關變項的考量 38
(一)家戶資源 38
(二)家戶人數與年齡 40
(三)老人與兒童需求之差異 41
(四)家戶類型 43
第三節、貧窮門檻調整的考量 44
(一)不同時間之調整 44
(二)不同年齡與家戶型態之調整 44
(三)不同區域之調整 47
第四章、貧窮門檻的建立 48
第一節、FCSU貧窮門檻設定 48
(一)基準預算的設定 49
(二)參考家庭的選擇 50
(三)適當乘數的估算 51
(四)均等比的調整 53
(五)地理差異的調整 56
(六)家庭資源的界定 57
第二節、貧窮測量對貧窮率的影響 58
(一)模擬官訂門檻與FCSU預算乘數門檻之差異 58
(二)均等比調整對貧窮率的影響 60
第三節、貧窮測量與家戶人口組成 66
(一)家戶型態的貧窮率變化趨勢 66
(二)均等比調整對單親家戶的影響 69
(三)均等比調整對老人家戶的影響 71
第五章、台灣的貧窮趨勢 77
第一節、Sen指標之公設內涵 78
第二節、多元貧窮指標之發展 81
第三節、多元貧窮指標的應用 83
第四節、總體貧窮趨勢之分析 86
(一)台灣總體貧窮趨勢的說明 86
(二)貧窮率、貧窮強度、貧窮不均度的變化 88
(三)影響貧窮趨勢變化的組成指標 92
第五節、小戶量家戶的貧窮趨勢 93
(一)戶量之貧窮趨勢 94
(二)小戶量家戶類型之貧窮趨勢 97
(三)性別與家戶類型之貧窮趨勢 99
(四)單人家戶、戶長性別與年齡之貧窮趨勢 100
第六章、結論 105
第一節、研究發現 105
(一)貧窮趨勢的變化 106
(二)貧窮率、貧窮強度與貧窮不均度 106
(三)貧窮家戶的特性 107
第二節、政策意涵 108
第三節、研究限制 110
附錄 112
(一)預算法之比較 112
(二)FCSU預算乘數設定 114
(三)老人家戶貧窮程度降低的原因 116
參考書目 117
表目次
表一、社會經濟指標 4
表二、貧窮判定之指標 37
表三、各種兒童成本比例設定 43
表四、歷年家戶人口規模與變動消費折算率 45
表五、四口之家FCSU消費支出與乘數之分組平均數 52
表六、模擬官訂貧窮門檻與FCSU預算乘數門檻的比較 59
表七、考慮兒童成本的均等比與貧窮門檻 61
表八、考慮兒童成本與聯合消費規模的均等比與貧窮門檻 62
表九、各種門檻設定下的貧窮率 65
表十、貧窮門檻的調整與各類型態家戶之貧窮率 67
表十一、單親家戶的貧戶組成 70
表十二、不同戶量之戶長年齡組成與門檻設定 72
表十三、歷年SST指標之變化 89
表十四、歷年SST指標粗率線型分解之數值 92
表十五、歷年戶量之貧窮率與組成 95
表十六、小戶量家戶類型的貧戶組成 97
表十七、男性單身貧戶年齡組成 103
圖目次
圖一、剝奪指數曲線圖 23
圖二、家庭戶量按戶內人口規模別之分類 51
圖三、台灣的貧窮趨勢 87
圖四、歷年貧窮強度趨勢 90
圖五、歷年貧窮不均度趨勢 91
圖六、戶量之貧窮趨勢 96
圖七、性別與家戶類型之貧窮趨勢 99
圖八、單人家戶戶長性別與年齡別之貧窮趨勢 101
圖九、單人家戶貧戶率 116

參考書目
王 正
1994 「社會救助、家庭人口規模與貧窮水準測定之研究」,經社法治論叢13:69-87。
王正、葉秀珍
1995 全民健保保險費減免及中低收入戶補助相關問題之研究。中央健康保險局85年度委託研究計畫報告。
王仕圖
2001 貧窮持續時間與再進入的動態分析:以1990∼1998年之嘉義縣低收入戶為例。嘉義:國立中正大學社會福利研究所博士論文。
王金利
1986 「人口屬性的引入與恩格爾函數的擴張」,台灣經濟金融月刊22(7):64-74。
1989 「等成年男子數折算標準之比較檢討」,經濟研究 29:81-101。
1994 「總合近似理想需求體系、等成員人數與臺灣家戶福利水準」,台灣銀行季刊 45(3):259-296。
王德睦、何華欽、呂朝賢
2003 「兒童與成人基本生活費用的差異」,調查研究13:5-38。
王德睦、呂朝賢
1997 「人口老化與貧窮」,孫得雄、齊力、與李美玲主編,人口老化與老年照顧。台北:中華民國人口學會。
王德睦、呂朝賢、何華欽
2003 「台灣貧窮門檻與測量的建立:FCSU的應用」,台大社工學刊8:1-46。
內政部社會司
1996 社會救助法規彙編。台北:內政部社會司。
1997 社會救助法。台北:內政部社會司。
2001 社會救助法。台北:內政部社會司。
朱雲鵬
1987 「貧窮問題之探討:台灣地區資料之因素分解研究」,專題選刊(71)。台北:中央研究院三民主義研究所。
何華欽、王德睦、呂朝賢
2003 「貧窮測量對貧窮人口組成之影響:預算標準之訂定與模擬」,人口學刊27:67-104。
呂朝賢
1996 「貧窮女性化與貧窮程度的性別差異」,人文及社會科學集刊8(2):221-256。
1998 台灣的貧窮問題:理論的定位、檢證與政策。嘉義:國立中正大學社會福利研究所博士論文。
1999 「社會救助問題:政策目的、貧窮的定義與測量」,人文及社會科學集刊11(2):233-63。
李淑容
1996 「由中美貧窮線現制之檢討論我國貧窮線之研擬」,東吳社會工作學報2:161-182。
林松齡
1991 「貧窮問題」,楊國樞、葉啟政主編,台灣的社會問題,301-325。台北:巨流。
林松齡、王震寰 主編
1995 台灣社會學研究的回顧與前瞻論文集。台中市:東海大學社會學系。
林美伶
1999 我國貧窮門檻之建構、調整與影響。嘉義:國立中正大學社會福利研究所碩士論文。
林美伶、王德睦
2000 「貧窮門檻對貧窮率與貧窮人口組成之影響」,台灣社會福利學刊1:115-55。
林萬億
1994 福利國家---歷史比較的分析。台北:巨流。
林萬億、李淑容、王永慈
1995 我國社會救助政策之研究。內政部研究報告。
孫得雄、齊力、與李美玲主編
1997 人口老化與老年照顧。台北:中華民國人口學會。
孫健忠
1995 台灣地區社會救助政策發展之研究。台北:時英。
2002 台灣社會救助制度實施與建構之研究。台北:時英。
陳琇惠
1986 訂定貧窮線之方徑與標準的探討。台北:中華民國社區發展訓練中心。
陳銀錄
1987 貧窮指數的因素分解研究。台北:中興大學經濟學研究所碩士論文。
黃乃凡
1995 台灣貧窮女性化的探討:女性戶長家戶貧窮現象之貫時性研究。嘉義:國立中正大學社會福利研究所碩士論文。
黃進豐
1990 改進當前社會救助措施之研究。台北:內政部社會司。
萬育維
1992 「貧窮問題與社會救助之間的關係探討:臺北市、高雄市低收入戶界定標準與社會救助措施之比較研究」,輔仁學誌24:107-156。
蔡宏昭
1990 「從生活水準理論探討生活保護措施」,中山社會科學季刊5(3):109-130。
蔡明璋
1996 台灣的貧窮:下層階級的結構分析。台北市:巨流。
張清富
1993 台灣省貧窮趨勢與致貧因素之研究。台北市:豪峰。
薛承泰
1996 「台灣地區單親戶的數量、分佈與特性:以1990年普查為例」,人口學刊 17:1-30。
2000 「台灣地區單親戶之貧窮:以1998年為例」,台大社工學刊2:151-189。
2002 「一九九O年代台灣地區單人戶的特性:兼論老人單人戶之貧窮」,人口學刊 25: 57-89。
羅紀瓊
1984 「台灣地區家庭部門的消費型態:線型對數支出體系與多項式對數函數之比較」,中央研究院經濟研究所經濟論文12(2):17-44。
1996 「台灣省的貧戶認定標準:The Poverty Line in Taiwan」,中央研究院經濟研究所,行政院國家科學委員會補助專題報告。
Alcock, Pete
1997 Understanding Poverty, London: The MacMillan Press Ltd.
Atkinson, A. B.
1987 “On the Measurement of Poverty”, Econometrica, 55(4): 749-764.
1995 Incomes and the Welfare State: Essays on Britain and Europe, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Beckerman, W., and S. Clark
1982 Poverty and Social Security in Britain since 1961, London: Oxford University Press.
Betson, David
1990 Alternative Estimates of the Cost of Children from the 1980-1986 Consumer Expenditure Survey, Institute for Research on Poverty, Special Report No. 51, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
1996 “Is Everything Relative? The Role of Equivalence Scales in Poverty Measurement” University of Notre Dame, Working paper on Institute for Research on Poverty.
Bishop, John A., John P. Formby, Buhong Zheng
1997 “Statistical Inference and the Sen Index of Poverty”, International Economic Review, 38(2): 381-387.
Blackorby, Charles and David Donaldson
1980 “Ethical Indices for the Measurement of Poverty”, Econometrica, 48(4): 1053-1060.
Booth, C.
1889 Life and Labour of the People of London, London: Macmillan.
Booth, W.
1890 In Darkest England, or, the Way out, Salvation Army.
Bosch, Karel Van den
2001 Identifying the Poor: using subjective and consensual measures, Aldershot, Ashgate.
Bradshaw, Jonathan(ed.)
1993 Budget Standards for the United Kingdom, Avebury: Aldershot.
Bradshaw, Jonathan and Roy Sainsbury(eds.)
2000 Getting the Measure of Poverty: The Early Legacy of Seebohm Rowntree, Aldershot, Ashgate.
Briggs, A.S.
1961 Social Thought and Social Action: A Study of the Work of Seebohm Rowntree, 1871-1954, Longmans.
Bruchey, Stuart(ed.)
1998 Poverty and Single Parent Families, New York: Garland.
Carvalho, Soniya and Howard White
1997 “Combining the quantitative and qualitative approaches to poverty measurement and analysis: the practice and potential”, World Bank Technical Paper no.366.
Chakravarty, Satya R.
1997 “On Shorrock’s Reinvestigation of the Sen Poverty Index”, Econometrica, 65(5): 1241-1242.
Citro, Constance F., and Robert T. Michael(eds.)
1995 Measuring Poverty: A New Approach, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Clark, Stephen, Richard Hemming and David Ulph
1981 “On Indices for the Measurement of Poverty”, The Economic Journal, 91(362): 515-526.
Creedy, John
1998 “Measuring Poverty: An Introduction”, The Australian Economic Review, 31(1): 82-89.
Deaton, A. S., and J. Muellbauer
1986 “On Measuring Child Costs: With Applications to Poor Countries”, Journal of Political and Economy 94(4):720-744.
Desai, M., and Shah, A.
1988 “An Econometric Approach to the Measurement of Poverty”, Oxford Economic Papers, 40: 505-22.
Eardley, T. etal.
1996 Social Assistance in OECD Countries: Synthesis Report, London: HMSO.
Espenshade, T
1984 Investing in Children: New of Parental Expenditures, The Urban Institute Press, Washington.
Fisher, Gordon M.
2001 “Enough for a Family to Live On?─Questions from Members of the American Public and New Perspectives from British Social Scientists”, paper presented on the Twenty-Third Annual Research Conference of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Washington, D.C., 2 November 2001.
Forster, J. E.
1984 “On Economic Poverty: A Survey of Aggregate Measures”, 215-251, In Basmann, R.L. and George F. Rhodes eds., Advances in Econometrics vol3: Economic Inequality Measurement and Policy, London: JAI Press Inc.
Foster, James, Joel Greer and Erik Thorbecke
1984 “A Class of Decomposable Poverty Measures”, Econometrica, 52(3): 761-766.
Forster, J. E. and A. F. Shorrocks
1988 “Poverty Orderings”, Econometrica, 56(1): 173-177.
1988 “Poverty Orderings and Welfare Dominance”, 91-110, In Gaertner, W. and Pattanaik, P. K. eds., Distributive justice and inequality: A selection of papers given at a conference, Berlin, May 1986, Germany: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Fuchs, Victor R.
1965 “Toward a Theory of Poverty”, In The Concept of Poverty, Task Force on Economic Growth and Opportunity, Washington, DC: Chamber of Commerce of the United States.
1967 “Redefining Poverty and Redistributing Income”, The Public Interest 8 (Summer):88-95.
Garner, Thesia I., Geoffrey Paulin, Stephanie Shipp, BLS, Kathleen Short, Chuck Nelson, Census Bureau
1997 “Experimental Poverty Measurement for the 1990”s”, Working Papers, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington DC.
George, Vic and Irving Howards
1991 Poverty Amidst Affluence - Britain and the United State, England: Edward Elgar.
Gillie, A.
2000 “Rowntree, Poverty Lines and School Boards”, In J. Bradshaw and R. Sainsbury, eds.,2000, Getting the Measure of Poverty: The Early Legacy of Sebohm Rowntree, Aldershot: Ashgate.
Goedhart, T., V, Halberstadt, A. Kapteyn, and B.M S. van Praag
1977 “The Poverty Line: Concept and Measurement”, Journal of Human Resources 12(4):503-20.
Gordon, D. and C. Pantazis(eds.)
1997 Breadline Britain in the 1990s, Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Gordon, D. and Paul Spicker(eds.)
1998 The International Glossary on Poverty, London: Zed Books.
Hagenaars, Aldi
1986 The Perception of Poverty, Amsterdam: North-Holland.
1987 “A Class of Poverty Indices”, International Economic Review, 28(3): 583-607.
1991 “The Defination and Measurement of Poverty”, Osberg, L.(ed.), Economic Inequality and Poverty: International Perspectives, Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.
Hagenaars, Aldi, and Klaas de Vos
1988 “The Definition and Measurement of Poverty”, The Journal of Human Resources 23(2): 211-21.
Hagenaars, A. J. M. and M. S. van Praag
1985 “A Synthesis of Poverty Line Definitions”, Review of Income and Wealth 31(2):139-55.
Halleröd, Björn
1994 “A New Approach to the Direct Consensual Measurement of Poverty”, Social Policy Research Centre Discussion Paper 50.
1995 “The Truly Poor: Direct and Indirect Consensual Measurement of Poverty in Sweden”, Journal of European Social Policy 5(2):111-29.
Jenkins, Stephen P. and Peter J. Lambert
1997 “Three ‘I’s of Poverty Curves, with An Analysis of UK Poverty Trends”, Oxford Economic Papers, 49(3): 317-327.
Kaim-Caudle, P.
1998 “Misleading Data?”, Paper presented to the Rowntree Poverty Conference, University of York, March.
Kakwani, N.
1980 “On a Class of Poverty Measures”, Econometrica, 48(2): 437-446.
1981 “Note on a New Measure of Poverty”, Econometrica, 49(2): 525-526.
1984 “Issues in Measuring Poverty”, 253-281, In Basmann, R.L. and George F. Rhodes eds., Advances in Econometrics vol3: Economic Inequality Measurement and Policy, London: JAI Press Inc.
Kapteyn, Arie, Peter Kooreman, and Rob Willemse
1988 “Some Methodological Issues in the Implementation of Subjective Poverty Definitions”, The Journal of Human Resources 23(2): 222-42.
Lancaster, Geoffrey, and Ranjan Ray
1998 “Comparison of Alternative Models of Household Equivalence Scales: The Australian Evidence on Unit Record Data”, The Economic Society of Australia 74(224):1-14.
Lewis, G. W. and D. T. Ulph
1988 “Poverty, Inequality and Welfare”, The Economic Journal, 98(390): 117-131.
Lipton, M. and m. Ravallion
1995 “Poverty and Policy”, In Handbook of Development Economics, 3B, North Holland.
Lovering, K.
1984 “Cost of Children in Australia”, Working Paper No.8, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne.
Mack, Joanna and Stewart Lansley
1985 Poor Britain, London: George Allen & Unwin.
Martinez, Rosa and Jesús Ruiz-Huerta
2000 “Income, Multiple Deprivation and Poverty: An Empirical Analysis Using Spanish Data”, Paper prepared for the 26th General Conference of The International Association for Research in Income and Wealth Cracow, Poland, 27 August to 2 September.
Mayhew, H.
1851 “London Labour and the London Poor”, edited by P. Quennell(1949, 1950 and 1951), Kimber.
McDonald, Peter
1990 “The Costs of Children: A Review of Methods and Results”, Family Matters 27: 18-22.
McGarry, Kathleen
1995 “Measurement Error and Poverty Rates of Widows”, Journal of Human Resources, 30(1): 113-134.
Myles, John and Garnett Picot
2000 “Poverty Indices and Policy Analysis”, Review of Income and Wealth, 46(2): 161-179.
Nicholson, J. L.
1976 “Appraisal of Different Methods of Estimating Equivalence Scales and Their Results”, The Review of Income and Wealth 22(March):1-11.
Oldfield Nina
1993 “The Cost of a Child”, In J. Bradshaw ed., Budget Standards for the United Kingdom, England: Avebury.
Osberg, Lars
2000 “Poverty in Canada and the United States: Measurement, Trends, and Implications”, Canadian Journal of Economics, 33(4): 847-877.
Osberg, Lars and Kuan Xu
2000 “International Comparisons of Poverty Intensity: Index Decomposition and Bootstrap Inference”, The Journal of Human Resources, 35(1): 51-81.
Orshansky, Mollie
1965 “Counting the Poor: Another look at the Poverty Profile”, Social Secuity Bulletin 28(7):3-29.
Parker, Hermione (ed.)
1998 Low Cost but Acceptable: A minimum income standard for the UK, Great Britain: The Policy Press and the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust.
Piachaud, D.
1979 The Cost of a Child, Poverty Pamphlet 43, London, Child Poverty Action Group.
1981 “Peter Townsend and the Holy Grail”, New Society 57:419-21.
1987 “Problems in the Definition and Measurement of Poverty”, Journal of Social Policy, 16(2):147-64.
Ravallion Martin
1996 “Issues in Measuring and Modelling Poverty”, The Economic Journal, 106(438): 1328-1343.
1998 “Poverty Lines in Theory and Practice”, LSMS, Working Paper No. 133. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Renwick, Trudi J. and Barbara R. Bergmann
1993 “A Budget-Based Definition of Poverty with an Application to Single-Parent Families”, Journal of Human Resources 28(1):1-24.
Ringen, Stein
1988 “Direct and Indirect Measures of Poverty”, Journal of Social Policy 17(3):351-65
Rodgers, John L. and Joan R. Rodgers
1991 “Measuring the Intensity of Poverty Among Subpopulations”, The Journal of Human Resources, 26(2): 338-361.
Rogaly, Ben, Thomas Fisher and ED Mayo
1999 Poverty Social Exclusion and Microfinance in Britain, Oxfam GB, London.
Rongve, Ian
1997 “Statistical Inference for Poverty Indices with Fixed Poverty Lines”, Applied Economics, 29: 387-392.
Rongve, Ian and Charles Beach
1997 “Estimation and Inference for Normative Inequality Indices”, International Economic Review, 38(1): 83-96.
Rothbarth, E.
1943 “Note on a Method of Determining Equivalent Income for Families of Different Composition”, In C. Madge, ed., War Time Pattern of Saving and Spending, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rothe, Ingrid, Judith Cassetty and Elisabeth Boehnen
2001 “Estimates of Family Expenditures for Children: A Review of the Literature”, Working paper on Institute for Research on Poverty.
Rosenberg, A.
1995 Philosophy of Social Science, UK: Westview.
Rowntree, B S
1901 Poverty: A Study of Town Life, London, Macmillan.
1941 Poverty and Progress: A Second Social Survey of York, London, Longmans Green.
Rowntree, B.S. and Lavers, G.R.
1951 Poverty and the Welfare State: A Third Social Suvery of York Dealing only with Economic Questions, London, Longmans Green.
Ruggles, Patricia
1990 Drawing the Line: Alternative Poverty Measures and Their Implications for Policy, Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
Saunders, Peter
1999 “Budget Standards and the Costs of Children”, Family Matters 53: 62-70.
Schwarz, John E., and Thomas J. Volgy
1992 The Forgotten Americans, New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Sen, Amartya
1976 “Poverty: An Ordinal Approach to Measurement”, Econometrica, 44(2): 219-231.
1979 “Issues in the Measurement of Poverty”, Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 81: 285-307.
1982 Choice, Welfare and Measurement, Oxford, Blackwell.
1983 “Poor Relatively Speaking”, Oxford Economic Papers, 35: 153-69.
1985 “A Sociological Approach to the Measurement of Poverty: A Reply to Peter Townsend”, Oxford Economic Papers, 37: 669-76.
1997 On Economic Inequality, Oxford: Clarendon.
Shorrocks, Anthony F.
1995 “Revisiting the Sen Poverty Index”, Econometrica, 63(5): 1225-1230.
Smeeding, Timothy
1986 “Luxembourg Income Study”, The Journal of Human Resources, XXI(4)638-643.
Spicker, Paul
1993 Poverty and Social Security: Concepts and Principles, New York: Routledge.
1999 “Definitions of Poverty: Eleven Clusters of Meaning”, In David Gordon and Paul Spicker eds., The International Glossary on Poverty, London: Zed Books.
Stitt, Sean and Diane Grant
1993 Poverty: Rowntree Revisited, Aldershot: Avebury.
Takayama, Noriyuki
1979 “Poverty, Income Inequality, and Their Measures: Professor Sen”s Axiomatic Approach Reconsidered”, Econometrica, 47(3): 747-760.
Thon, D.
1979 “On Measuring Poverty”, Review of Income and Wealth, 25(June): 429-439.
1983 “A Note on a Troublesome Axiom for Poverty Indices”, The Economic Journal, 93(369): 199-200.
Townsend, Peter
1987 “Deprivation”, Journal of Social Policy, 16(2): 125-146.
1979 Poverty in the United Kingdom: a Survey of Household Resources and Standards of Living, Harmondsworth:Penguin Books.
1981 “Rejoinder to Piachaud”, New Society.
1985 “A Sociological Approach to the Measurement of Poverty: A Rejoinder to Professor Amartya Sen”, Oxford Economic Papers, 37: 659-68.
1993 The International Analysis of Poverty, New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Tsui, Kai-yuen
2002 “Multidimensional Poverty Indices”, Social Choice and Welfare, 19: 69-93.
Van der Gaag, J.
1982 “On Measuring the Cost of Children”, In I. Garfinkel and M.S. Melli, eds., Child Support: Weaknesses of the Old and Features of a Proposed New System, Institute for Research on Poverty, Special Report No. 32C, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Van der Gaag, J., and E. Smolensky
1982 “True Household Equivalence Scales and Characteristics of the Poor in the United States”, Review of Income and Wealth 28:17-28.
Van Praag, B.M.S., A.J.M. Hagenaars and H. van Weeren
1982 “Poverty in Europe”, Review of Income and Wealth 28:345-59.
Vaughan, Richard N.
1987 “Welfare Approaches to the Measurement of Poverty”, The Economic Journal, 97, Issue Supplement: Conference Papers, 160-170.
Veit-Wilson, J.H.
1986 “Paradigms of Poverty: A Rehabilitation of B.S. Rowntree”, Journal of Social Policy 15(4): 503-507.
1987 “Consensual Approach to Poverty Lines and Social Security”, Journal of Social Policy 16(2):183-211.
1992 “Muddle or Mendacity? The Beveridge Committee and the Poverty Line”, Journal of Social Policy 21(3):269-301.
Walker, Robert
1987 “Consensual Approaches to the Definition of Poverty: Towards an Alternative Methodology”, Journal of Social Policy 16(2):213-26.
Walker, Robert, Roger Lawson, Peter Townsend (eds.)
1984 Responses to poverty: Lessons from Europe, London, Heinemann Educational Books.
Watts, Harold W.
1967 “The Iso-Prop Index: An Approach to the Determination of Differential Poverty Income Thresholds”, Journal of Human Resources 2(1):3-18.
1980 “Special Panel Suggests Changes in BLS Family Budget Program”, Monthly Labor Review 103(December):3-10.
1993 “A Review of Alternative Budget-Based Expenditure Norms”, Committee on National Statistics, National Research Council, Columbia University.
Weinberg , Daniel H.
1995 “Measuring Poverty: Issues and Approaches”, Census Bureau working paper.
Wedderburn, Dorothy
1974 Poverty, Inequality and Class Structure, New York: Cambridge.
Xu, Kuan and Lars Osberg
2001 “How to Decompose the Sen-Shorrocks-Thon Poverty Index: A Practitioner”s Guide”, Journal of Income Distribution, 10(1-2): 77-94.
Xu, Kuan and Lars Osberg
2002 “The Social Welfare Implications, Decomposability, and Geometry of the Sen Family of Poverty Indices”, Canadian Journal of Economics, 35(1): 138-152.
Yu, Autumn C. S.
1993 “The Low Cost Budget”, In Jonathan Bradshaw ed., Budget Standards for the United Kingdom, Aldershot, Eng.: Avebury.
Zheng, B.
1994 “Can a Poverty Index be Both Relative and Absolute?” Econometrica, 62(6): 1453-1458.
1997 “Aggregate Poverty Measures”, Journal of Economic Surveys 11: 123-161.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔