an article by Vanessa Beck (University of Leicester, UK) published in Work, Employment and Society Volume 32 Issue 1 (February 2018)
Abstract
This article discusses the issue of choice as it applies to long-term unemployed and vulnerable individuals.
It argues that the combination of poor employment opportunities, requirements, compulsions and sanctions has not merely reduced available choice for individuals with multiple barriers to re-/join the labour market but has also resulted in curtailed decision-making abilities when it comes to their pathways into employment.
The outcomes can include protective resistance as a response to the extent of regulation, which may undermine engagement in job search and related activities. Despite attempts by benevolent staff in a charity to provide support and enhance capabilities that result in the overcoming of protective resistance, they operate within a broader institutional framework of choice as set by government policy.
The end result is compulsion, not choice.
Showing posts with label capabilities. Show all posts
Showing posts with label capabilities. Show all posts
Friday, 16 March 2018
Tuesday, 18 December 2012
Multiple Disadvantages Among Older Citizens: What a Multidimensional Measure of Poverty Can Show
an article by Emily J. Callander, Deborah J. Schofield and Rupendra N. Shrestha (University of Sydney, Australia) published in Journal of Aging & Social Policy Volume 24 Issue 4 (October – December 2012)
Abstract
Using the newly created Freedom Poverty Measure, a multidimensional measure of poverty, it can be seen that there were 534,700 individuals who were in freedom poverty, who had either poor health or poor education in addition to having low incomes.
This multidimensional disadvantage would not normally be captured by single measures of poverty, such as income poverty measures. Men were significantly less likely to be in freedom poverty than women (OR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.54–0.74, p < .0001), and the proportion of individuals in freedom poverty increased with age, with those older than 85 being 2.3 times more likely to be in freedom poverty than those aged 65 to 69 years (95% CI: 1.73–3.11, p < .0001).
Policy responses to address the marginalization of disadvantaged older people should take a multidisciplinary approach, addressing health inequalities in particular, not just low income.
I’m thinking and thinking but I am sure that I have not seen this Freedom Poverty Measure mentioned in anything I have read before.
Google to the rescue!
And, surprise, surprise, it’s the same three authors but in a different publication.
Capacity for Freedom – Using a New Poverty Measure to Look at Regional Differences in Living Standards within Australia
an article by Emily J. Callander, Deborah J. Schofield and Rupendra N. Shrestha (University of Sydney, Australia) published in Geographical Research Volume 50 Issue 4 (November 2012)
Abstract
Using a recently developed measure of multidimensional poverty, the Freedom Poverty Measure, the difference in poverty rates of major cities, inner regional, and other areas have been compared. The population living in ‘other areas’ had the highest proportion of individuals living in freedom poverty.
Those in inner regional areas (P = 0.0303) and those in major cities (P < 0.0001) were significantly less likely to be in freedom poverty than those in ‘other areas’. However, when breaking the analysis down to look at the different poverty rates for different age groups across the three regional classifications, it was found that there was no difference in the likelihood of being in freedom poverty between children in inner regional and other areas, adults in inner regional and other areas, and older people in inner regional and other areas.
This may indicate that the disadvantage experienced by those living in regional centres has been overlooked in the past and is an emerging contemporary issue for health and education equity as well as economic equality.
Abstract
Using the newly created Freedom Poverty Measure, a multidimensional measure of poverty, it can be seen that there were 534,700 individuals who were in freedom poverty, who had either poor health or poor education in addition to having low incomes.
This multidimensional disadvantage would not normally be captured by single measures of poverty, such as income poverty measures. Men were significantly less likely to be in freedom poverty than women (OR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.54–0.74, p < .0001), and the proportion of individuals in freedom poverty increased with age, with those older than 85 being 2.3 times more likely to be in freedom poverty than those aged 65 to 69 years (95% CI: 1.73–3.11, p < .0001).
Policy responses to address the marginalization of disadvantaged older people should take a multidisciplinary approach, addressing health inequalities in particular, not just low income.
I’m thinking and thinking but I am sure that I have not seen this Freedom Poverty Measure mentioned in anything I have read before.
Google to the rescue!
And, surprise, surprise, it’s the same three authors but in a different publication.
Capacity for Freedom – Using a New Poverty Measure to Look at Regional Differences in Living Standards within Australia
an article by Emily J. Callander, Deborah J. Schofield and Rupendra N. Shrestha (University of Sydney, Australia) published in Geographical Research Volume 50 Issue 4 (November 2012)
Abstract
Using a recently developed measure of multidimensional poverty, the Freedom Poverty Measure, the difference in poverty rates of major cities, inner regional, and other areas have been compared. The population living in ‘other areas’ had the highest proportion of individuals living in freedom poverty.
Those in inner regional areas (P = 0.0303) and those in major cities (P < 0.0001) were significantly less likely to be in freedom poverty than those in ‘other areas’. However, when breaking the analysis down to look at the different poverty rates for different age groups across the three regional classifications, it was found that there was no difference in the likelihood of being in freedom poverty between children in inner regional and other areas, adults in inner regional and other areas, and older people in inner regional and other areas.
This may indicate that the disadvantage experienced by those living in regional centres has been overlooked in the past and is an emerging contemporary issue for health and education equity as well as economic equality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
