La variedad común o hilacha

21_{Instead, much of the reaction focused on his attempt to use deprivation indicators to derive an income threshold, which many found}

Nolan and Whelan (1996) developed this type of approach using Irish data. This showed in particular that:

■ the impact of low income on living standards depends on the length of time it persists and the availability of other resources (such as savings or help from family and friends) to supplement it;

■ those with adequate resources do not always use them to obtain the items deemed necessities by the general population; and

■ current lifestyle and deprivation are influenced by many factors other than income – for example, critical life-events such as divorce, separation or lone parenthood.

Subsequent research at the ESRI has taken advantage of the fact that the European Community Household Panel Study (ECHP) contains extensive data on both lifestyle deprivation and income, to extend this type of analysis to the countries of the European Union (e.g. Whelan et al, 2001). The central focus of this research has been on whether a common structure of deprivation exists across such countries, the extent to which the relationship between income and deprivation varies, and the broader determinants of deprivation. The following dimensions or clusters of items were distinguished consistently across the different EU Member States:

■ _{basic lifestyle deprivation: comprising items such as food and clothing, a holiday at least once} a year, replacing worn-out furniture and the experience of arrears;

■ secondary lifestyle deprivation: comprising items less likely to be considered essential, such as a car, a phone, a television, a video, a microwave and a dishwasher;

■ housing facilities: a bath or shower, an indoor flushing toilet and running water, all likely to be seen as essential;

■ housing deterioration: the existence of problems such as a leaking roof, dampness and rotting in window frames and floors; and

■ environmental problems: relating to noise, pollution, vandalism and inadequate space and light.

A number of other conclusions also applied across the different countries:

■ The relationship between income and the housing and environmental dimensions is generally weak (although strongest in Greece and Portugal); stage in the life-cycle, location and public policy influences play the major role in most countries in determining levels of deprivation in these dimensions.

■ The impact of income is consistently strongest for the basic deprivation dimension, and then for the secondary dimension. The items in the basic dimension tap current resources most directly, while the secondary items may be accumulated over time.

The other key findings from this research are that income is seriously inadequate when used as the sole indicator of living standards or poverty status, and that dynamics over time are critically important. This is brought out by comparing deprivation levels for households in the ECHP falling below different relative income poverty lines. In many of the Member States, deprivation levels (in

terms of the items in what we have called the basic and secondary dimensions) are no higher for those below a poverty line set at 40% of median income than for those below 50% and 60% lines. A policy of targeting resources at those falling below the lowest income line would be successful in reaching the most deprived households only in the less affluent Member States, notably Greece and Portugal. Elsewhere, current income among those in the lowest regions of the income distribution appears to be a poor indicator of command over the resources necessary to avoid deprivation. The assumption that income poverty lines identify thresholds below which households are excluded from their society appears particularly hazardous in countries such as Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium.

Income at a point in time may provide a relatively poor indicator of command over resources, and there is a serious mismatch between income and levels of deprivation. Development of measures of deprivation that can be shown to be reliable across countries offers the possibility of clarifying the nature of the mismatch consistently found in the earlier literature. Considerable progress has been made along these lines in a series of papers using the ECHP (Layte and Whelan, 2002; and Whelan et al, 2001, 2002, a ,b, and forthcoming). This analysis has brought out in particular the role played by income and labour force dynamics over time and the accumulation and erosion of resources over a lengthy period. The more one focuses on these long-term processes rather than on more transient circumstances, the more one sees a greater social structuring of disadvantage. It also brings out the importance of looking beyond the financial resources available to an individual or family, to take into account the ‘public goods’ provided in the form of services such as health care and education. Those who are affected by serious illness, for example, will be in a very different situation where high quality health care is publicly provided as opposed to having to find the resources to finance this care themselves. The same life-event can thus have a very different impact on the long-term resources of a household, depending on the support provided by a society in key areas of social provision.

While these are difficult to capture in conventional approaches to measuring poverty through household income, some approximation of their value can be made. Combining such broader measures of income with the types of non-monetary indicators of living standards discussed here offers considerable potential. Subjective perceptions of ease of access to and quality of social provision can also be used to try to capture this important dimension of quality of life.