Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Material Deprivation (material + deprivation)
Selected AbstractsMATERIAL DEPRIVATION, THE ,POVERTY RATE' AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE IN MODERN AMERICA1ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, Issue 3 2007Nicholas Eberstadt The official US ,poverty rate' appears to be a problematic descriptor of poverty trends and levels. Reported results from the ,poverty rate' do not track well with other indicators that would ordinarily be expected to bear directly on living conditions. Over the past 30 years, the relationship between the official poverty rate and these other indicators has been perversely discordant. This article outlines the basis of the poverty rate and the problems it now encounters as a reliable measure of material deprivation. [source] Poverty and deprivation among children in Eastern Europe and Central AsiaINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE, Issue 3 2009Leonardo Menchini Although there is now a large body of literature on poverty in the countries of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, there remains a dearth of comparative analysis of child poverty and wellbeing. This article uses household survey microdata for the period 2001,2003 to compare absolute poverty, relative poverty, material deprivation and participation in schooling among children in five countries: Albania, Bulgaria, Moldova, Russia and Tajikistan. The analysis shows that low absolute levels of household consumption are associated with other deprivation indicators and with children's participation in schooling. The article also highlights the usefulness of relative poverty measures that effectively identify children at risk of exclusion in even the poorest countries in the region. The article concludes by arguing that household consumption is a good indicator of child poverty and deprivation in the region, and that relative poverty measures should be more widely used in monitoring global targets for poverty reduction. [source] Poverty among households with children: a comparative study of Norway and GermanyINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE, Issue 4 2006Hans-Tore Hansen The purpose of this study was to compare poverty among lone parent households and couple households with children in Norway and Germany. The study applied three different measurement strategies: income poverty, material deprivation and reception of social assistance. We found that income poverty and material deprivation rates are higher in Germany than in Norway and are also higher for lone parents than for couples with children. Our analysis of the reception of social assistance shows a different pattern in which both Norwegian and German lone parents frequently receive social assistance. The results show that the different dimensions of poverty are not independent of one another, nor do they wholly overlap. Household characteristic variables, factors influencing labour market status and educational levels also seem to influence the risk of experiencing poverty. [source] Income Transfers Alone Won't Eradicate PovertyPOLICY STUDIES JOURNAL, Issue 4 2009Douglas J. Besharov Even in the current economic situation, in developed countries, rhetoric about cutting "poverty" is misleadingly outmoded,because it implicitly suggests that government income transfers can be the vehicle for achieving substantial reductions in poverty. Almost all Americans already live far above subsistence poverty: most because of their earnings, and the rest because of government transfer programs. This decline in material poverty is obscured by weaknesses in how the official U.S. poverty measure counts income. What is now called poverty is really "income inequality." Reducing income inequality is also a vitally important social goal, but it cannot be accomplished through income transfers alone. The authors argue that, although income transfers have a role to play in lessening the impact of material deprivation, real progress in raising incomes will require building the human capital of the economically disadvantaged. This means both increasing the earnings capacity of lower-income workers and reducing the number of female-headed families. [source] Relationship between area deprivation and the anticaries benefit of an oral health programme providing free fluoride toothpaste to young childrenCOMMUNITY DENTISTRY AND ORAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, Issue 3 2004R. P. Ellwood Abstract , Objective:,To determine the effectiveness of providing free toothpaste containing either 1450 or 440 ppm F on caries experience in 5-year-old children living in areas with different levels of material deprivation. Design:, Five-year, examiner-blind, randomized, controlled, parallel-group, clinical trial. Children were randomly assigned to three groups. Setting:, Health Districts in the north-west of England with high levels of dental caries. Clinical examinations were performed in schools during the period October 1999 to April 2000 when the children were 5,6 years old. Participants:, Children from 3-month birth cohorts resident in nine, nonfluoridated health districts. Interventions:, Toothpaste containing either 440 or 1450 ppm F and dental health literature posted at 3-month intervals and toothbrush provided annually from the age of 1,5 years. Comparison group received no intervention. Main outcome measures:, Mean dmft and proportion of participants with dmft > 0, dmft , 4, upper primary incisor caries and extraction of one or more primary teeth. Outcomes tabulated for quartiles of participants based on the distribution of the Townsend index of material deprivation. Results:, A total of 3467 children were included in the final data analysis. The Townsend index was found to be useful in identifying groups of children with increased caries risk. Overall, participants in the programme using the high-fluoride toothpaste had significantly (P < 0.002) less caries than the comparison group with similar absolute reductions in mean dmft for the most- and least-deprived groups. Relative to the comparison group the association between deprivation and dental caries was changed so that in the most-deprived quartile those using the low-fluoride toothpaste tended to have less dental caries than the comparison group whereas in the least deprived they tended to have more. This difference in the association (slope) was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Provision of both low- and high-fluoride toothpaste appeared to reduce the risk of extractions for participants in the most-deprived quartile (P < 0.05). Conclusion:, The relative benefits of the programmes supplying the two toothpastes considered in this study are different depending on the deprivation status of the participants. For the most-deprived groups postal provision of either a low- or high-fluoride toothpaste provides similar levels of benefit. In the less deprived groups only provision of the high-fluoride toothpaste provided a benefit. The absolute caries reduction seen for provision of the high-fluoride toothpaste was not related to the deprivation status and hence the programme did not reduce deprivation-related health inequalities. Targeting the programme using the methods employed in this study is unlikely to improve the effectiveness of the programme. [source] | ||||||||||