...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Measurement >Comparative Policy Approaches to Understanding Poverty
【24h】

Comparative Policy Approaches to Understanding Poverty

机译：理解贫困的比较政策方法

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The conceptual and methodological debate concerning poverty is not merely academic; the choice of one particular approach over another has important consequences both for identifying poverty and formulating policies that might best alleviate it (see Townsend, 1980). As such, the debate over how to define and quantify poverty is also a political debate. Accordingly, Iceland (this issue) provides a balanced overview of many of the theoretical choices confronting researchers and policy makers studying poverty. He also addresses several empirical challenges associated with measuring poverty in the United States. However, there are a few shortcomings in Iceland's contribution. My first objection is that Iceland does not adequately describe cross-national efforts at measuring poverty, which offer both theoretical and empirical insights that should not be ignored. Second, the National Academy of Science (NAS) panel's "quasi-relative" poverty measure, which Iceland prefers, bears little resemblance to most relative measures of poverty and is theoretically unsatisfying. Finally, Iceland overlooks the advantages of measuring market (pretax and pretransfer) income poverty in addition to disposable income poverty. By doing so, researchers may gain a better understanding of the relative importance of the market and the public sector in determining levels of economic well-being. In this brief commentary I address each of these concerns and illustrate them by reference to cross-national data made available by the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS; n.d.), which I hope will allow researchers to judge "... the effectiveness of American antipoverty policy with the experiences of other nations" (Smeeding, Rainwater, & Burtless, 2000, p. 1).
机译：有关贫困的概念和方法论辩论不仅是学术上的，而且还包括选择一种方法而不是另一种方法对识别贫困和制定可能最能减轻贫困的政策都具有重要的意义（Townsend，1980）。因此，关于如何定义和量化贫困的辩论也是政治辩论。因此，冰岛（本期）对研究贫困的研究人员和决策者所面临的许多理论选择提供了平衡的概述。他还解决了与衡量美国贫困状况相关的一些经验挑战。但是，冰岛的贡献存在一些不足。我的第一个反对意见是，冰岛没有充分描述跨国公司在衡量贫困方面所做的努力，这些努力提供了理论和经验方面的见识，不容忽视。第二，冰岛更喜欢美国国家科学院（NAS）小组的“准相对”贫困衡量标准，它与大多数相对的贫困衡量标准几乎没有相似之处，并且理论上也不令人满意。最后，冰岛忽略了除可支配收入贫困之外衡量市场（税前和转移前）收入贫困的优势。这样，研究人员可以更好地了解市场和公共部门在确定经济福祉水平方面的相对重要性。在这篇简短的评论中，我将解决所有这些问题，并参考卢森堡收入研究（LIS; nd）提供的跨国数据进行说明，我希望这些数据能够使研究人员判断“ ...美国反贫困的有效性”。政策和其他国家的经验”（Smeeding，Rainwater和Burtless，2000年，第1页）。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Measurement》 |2005年第4期|p.248-252|共5页
  • 作者

    David K. Jesuit;

  • 作者单位

    Department of Political Science, Central Michigan University, Anspach 313B, Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859;

  • 收录信息 美国《科学引文索引》(SCI);
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 社会科学总论;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号