Income-based poverty measures have been criticised for being narrowly focused on income and lacking consistency with community expectations and experience. The consensual income approach produces a poverty line that draws on community perceptions of how much is needed to avoid poverty (or make ends meet). Perceptions vary widely, although it is possible to estimate the income level at which people would say on average, that their current income is just enough for them to make ends meet. This paper re-examines the approach using new survey data for Hong Kong. The estimated consensual poverty lines are shown to have similarities for some households with those used by the Hong Kong Commission on Poverty, but there are also marked differences, particularly for single-person households. An overlap measure is developed that includes those in consensual poverty who also answered Yes when asked if they regard themselves as living in poverty. This overlap measure is shown to more closely resemble the poverty lines used by the Commission, although the gap for single-person households remains large.

Conventional (income-based) poverty measures have been criticised for being narrowly focused and failing to provide evidence that those identified as poor have an unacceptable standard of living. The consensual approach to deprivation addresses both weaknesses by drawing on community perceptions of what items are essential for all and establishing that those who do not have them cannot afford them. In contrast, the consensual income approach maintains the role of income as a key determinant of poverty but uses community perceptions of how much is needed to make ends meet to set a poverty line. Although perceptions vary widely, it is possible to estimate the income level at which people with that income would say that their current income is just enough to make ends meet. This article re-examines this approach drawing on recent developments in poverty research and using new data for Australia. The consensual poverty lines produced are shown to have similarities with those used in existing poverty studies, but also to exhibit important differences. An overlap measure is developed that includes those in consensual poverty who also indicate that their current income is not enough for them to make ends meet. The poverty rates produced by this overlap measure is shown to align with those based on the 50 per cent of median-income OECD equivalised poverty line used in most Australian studies. It is argued that the consensual income approach has the potential to advance our understanding of poverty beyond that provided by conventional income-based measures.

This article examines trends in social disadvantage in Australia over the decade to 2018 using two approaches: a monetary approach using poverty and a living standards approach using deprivation. We compare the two approaches, highlight their implications and assess whether the evidence produced by each is consistent with trickle-down effects. The estimates allow for variations in thresholds, the treatment of housing costs and relative and absolute measures. The findings indicate an overall decline in poverty that is dependent on the treatment of housing costs and a more consistent decline in deprivation but with little or no improvement for many experiencing poverty or deprivation. Poverty and deprivation among unemployed households were above those for people in other labour force states throughout the period and while these differentials have narrowed, the findings suggest that trickle-down effects did not reach many of those highly disadvantaged or are subject to long delays. JEL Codes: I32, E65, H55

Since 2012, the Hong Kong SAR government has been producing annual reports of the poverty situation. This paper complements that work by applying the consensual approach to identify and measure deprivation among adults and children. Adults are defined as deprived if they do not have and cannot afford adult necessities, while children are deprived if they do not have but want child necessities. The results indicate that one-in-six adults and almost one-in-four children were deprived in 2016, with both rates increasing with the number of children in the household. The paper then examines the deprivation status of adults and children living in the same household, showing that 12% of households contain at least one deprived child but no deprived adults, with a further 10% of households containing at least one deprived adult but no deprived children. Finally, we compare differences in the deprivation rates of siblings living together and examine how they vary with type of household, and the characteristics of adult and children.

Homeownership has traditionally been high in Australia, where a broad range of tax and social security concessions are designed to promote ownership and reduce housing costs for owners. These have allowed homeowning age pensioners to avoid poverty despite receiving a pension that is low by international standards among high-income countries. This approach provides the fourth pillar of the Australian retirement income support system, an example of 'Australian exceptionalism'. We examine recent trends in two measures of social disadvantage-poverty and deprivation-focusing on the changing role and impact of homeownership and housing costs. The comparisons reveal important differences in how housing costs are incorporated into the estimation of their impact and in how different social groups have fared, although our findings also indicate that the groups with highest incidence of poverty and deprivation have benefited least from the gains that others experienced over the period examined.

This paper compares the monetary and living standards approaches to poverty using Australian data for the period 2006–2017. The aim is to highlight the conceptual and empirical strengths and weaknesses of the two approaches and identify the similarities and differences that emerge when both are applied to examine what happened over the period and to a limited degree, why. The acknowledged limitations of estimating poverty rates by comparing household income with a poverty line have to a degree been addressed by developments in deprivation research that have generated estimates that are more directly related to living standards, more democratic and more credible. But this approach also has limitations, so its growing popularity need not signify the end of poverty line studies. This paper compares the two approaches, with specific attention paid to ensuring that the estimates are internally consistent over time and comparable at a point in time. Both show a consistent pattern of modest improvement in social disadvantage over the period examined, but they reveal different aspects of change. The monetary approach highlights the role of housing costs in driving changes in poverty, while the more nuanced explanation generated by estimates of deprivation provides detailed insights. The results suggest that each has a positive role to play in better understanding the nature of poverty and identifying the factors driving change over time.

This paper examines recent trends in Australian poverty, both measured using disposable income (before housing costs, BHC) and income after subtracting housing costs (AHC). Household-level data from Australian Bureau of Statistics household income surveys are used to estimate relative poverty rates since 1999–00. Changes in the Australian housing market, especially the large increase in house prices and falling home ownership, mean that trends and relative levels of poverty are quite different when using these two alternative measures of resources. While BHC poverty has decreased, AHC poverty has not—because of rising housing costs. These shifts have changed the profile of AHC poverty and raise important questions about the adequacy and sustainability of existing housing and income support policies.

Many studies have noted the low overlap between income poverty and material deprivation when the latter is derived using the consensual approach that builds on the work of Townsend. However, few have examined the contributing factors and even fewer have assessed the sensitivity of the overlap to different approaches and adjustments. This paper uses Australian data to examine the impact on the overlap of data adjustments and three substantive factors: short-run income fluctuations, housing costs and net wealth. The analysis shows that accounting for two of these factors leads to a marked increase in the overlap between poverty and deprivation.

This chapter draws attention to Australia's very rich tradition of family budget research, which was associated with the Social Policy Research Centre. It explains that the idea of a basic living standard enshrined in wage laws became a reality in Australia at the start of the 20th century. It also charts the history of budget standards research in Australia, focusing on the four major studies that were coordinated during the 1990s, 2000s and 2010s. The chapter looks at the latest work that relates to the budget for healthy living and combines public health knowledge and focus group deliberations. It concludes that budget standards only provide a rough-and-ready adequacy benchmark, which should be used with care and in conjunction with other measurement approaches to living standards whenever possible.

Esther Dermott and Gill Main (eds) (2017), Poverty and Social Exclusion in the UK, Volume 1 – The Nature and Extent of the Problem, Bristol: Policy Press, £25.99, pp. 280, pbk. - Glen Bramley and Nick Bailey (eds) (2017), Poverty and Social Exclusion in the UK, Volume 2 – The Dimensions of Disadvantage, Bristol: Policy Press, £32.99, pp. 384, pbk. - Volume 49 Issue 3

This paper applies a child-centric approach to examine the relationship between poverty, deprivation and well-being among children aged between 11 and 16 attending government high schools in New South Wales, Australia. Poverty is measured using children's perceptions of the ability of their family to 'get by' while the consensual approach is used to identify as deprived children who do not have but want items that are regarded by a majority as essential for all children. A survey was developed after conducing focus groups with children and was completed by 2672 children attending one of 52 schools in mid-2016. The survey data were used to estimate the incidence of poverty and deprivation and the severity of both conditions was compared with a range of indicators of subjective well-being that cover overall life satisfaction, happiness, connectedness and contentment with aspects of schooling. The results show that children who perceive themselves as either poor or deprived (or both) have lower levels of well-being in all four dimensions compared with children to who are neither poor nor deprived. The associations between well-being and both poverty and deprivation are similar, which suggests that both have a role to play and that some form of composite (overlap) measure should be included in future studies of child poverty and disadvantage.

There is growing interest in the application of Townsend's deprivation approach to provide estimates of poverty that more directly reflect the living standards of those on low income. The consensual approach is applied here using data from the second wave (conducted in 2015-2016) of the Trends and Implications of Social Disadvantages in Hong Kong survey. The article draws on a related study that identifies separate lists of items deemed "necessary for all" by a majority of adults (aged 18 years or older) and children (aged 10-17 years). Those unable to obtain at least three of these items are identified as deprived, and the profile of household deprivation is examined in terms of the family types most affected, age groups, and numbers of children. Further analysis focuses on the disparity between children identified as living in households identified as deprived according to information provided by adults and children whose deprivation status reflects their own views. Finally, the overlaps between deprivation and four measures of poverty-two objective and income based and two subjective and perception based-are examined and discussed. The results indicate that deprivation and poverty are different but that, however it is measured, more needs to be done to address poverty in Hong Kong, including further improvements in the coverage and adequacy of health service provision and social security benefits.

Social Policy & AdministrationVolume 53, Issue 6 p. 817-819 EDITORIAL Poverty and social disadvantage in Hong Kong Peter Saunders, Corresponding Author Peter Saunders p.saunders@unsw.edu.au orcid.org/0000-0003-1368-1696 Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorHung Wong, Hung Wong Department of Social Work, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong KongSearch for more papers by this author Peter Saunders, Corresponding Author Peter Saunders p.saunders@unsw.edu.au orcid.org/0000-0003-1368-1696 Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorHung Wong, Hung Wong Department of Social Work, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong KongSearch for more papers by this author First published: 17 October 2019 https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12537Citations: 1 Funding information: Hong Kong Research Grants Council, Grant/Award Number: Public Policy Research Funding Scheme Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Volume53, Issue6Special Issue: Poverty and social disadvantage in Hong KongNovember 2019Pages 817-819 RelatedInformation

Income-based studies of child poverty treat children and young people as effectively invisible and determine the poverty status of families or households on the basis of information that is provided by, and is primarily about, adults. In contrast, the consensual deprivation approach provides a way of developing measures that reflect the views of children about what constitutes poverty and can be applied to data that children themselves provide. This paper extends earlier Australian studies of adult deprivation by applying a similar approach to children aged 11-17 attending a NSW government high school. Focus groups were conducted with children to help identify items regarded as essential for all children, and the results informed the development of a survey that was completed by over 2,600 students. The survey asked about 24 items, 18 of which were retained after statistical testing, and these items form the basis of the deprivation analysis. The findings indicate that a substantial proportion of survey respondents experience either or both of material deprivation and social exclusion. A new Child Deprivation Index (CDI) is developed and used to compare the circumstances of different groups, highlighting some of the factors that are associated with higher levels of deprivation and providing some initial pointers to possible underlying causes.

The limitations of income-based poverty lines are widely acknowledged, but Australia lags behind many other countries in implementing new measures of social disadvantage based on the deprivation approach. A new suite of questions included in wave 14 of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey allows the deprivation approach to be applied. This article describes the advantages of the deprivation approach and shows that while the income and deprivation approaches can produce similar overall results, the circumstances of some sub-groups vary greatly according to which measure is used. A measure based on deprivation alone and/or a combined measure would be an important complement to conventional income-based poverty rates.