€¦ · Web viewWhat does it mean to have a minimum acceptable standard of living in Portugal today? -

10 Annual ESPAnet Conference 2012

Edimburg, 6-8 September 2012

Stream 4: Minimum Protection Policy and its Impact on Poverty: Theory, Methods and Results

What does it mean to have a minimum acceptable standard of living in Portugal today? - Methodological perspectives

Abstract:

Adequacy, understood as sufficient resources to support a certain minimally-acceptable level of living, is becoming a central concept in the European policy debate: several international and European commitments recognize the right for all to have an adequate level of resources to lead a decent and dignifying standard of living and the need for an adequate income support for those who lack sufficient resources (i.e. for those living in poverty).

The Minimum Income Standard for Portugal (RAP) is a project affiliated with the consensual budget approach, which replicates, with some adaptations, the methodology developed to determine a Minimum Income Standard (MIS) for Britain, and has as main proposal, in scientific terms, to contribute to reintroduce in the Portuguese social sciences poverty research agenda the estimation of income adequacy.

This paper contextualise and presents an overview of the project and discuss some methodological perspectives on poverty research, namely the contribution of the budgets standard consensual approach to establish a minimum acceptable standard for living in Portugal today, dimension that intend to stress its relevance for social policy in Portugal.

Keywords: Poverty and Standard of Living, Budget Consensual Approach, Portugal.

Submitter's E-mail Address: [email protected]

Authors: José PEREIRINHA1, Francisco BRANCO2, Elvira PEREIRA3,Dália COSTA3, Maria Inês MARTINHO2 and Francisco NUNES4

(1) Office of Economic and Social History, School of Economics and Management, Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal; (2) Research Center of Social Work & Sociology, Catholic University of Portugal, Portugal; (3) Centre for Public Administration and Policies, School of Social and Political Sciences, Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal; (4) Research Unit on Complexity and Economics, School of Economics and Management, Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal.

Work in progressNo technical language revision

Please do not quote without permission of the Authors

mailto:[email protected]

What does it mean to have a minimum acceptable standard of living in Portugal today? |

Introduction

Adequacy, understood as sufficient resources to support a certain minimally-acceptable level of living, is becoming a central concept in the European policy debate: several international and European commitments recognize the right for all to have an adequate level of resources to lead a decent and dignifying standard of living and the need for an adequate income support for those who lack sufficient resources (EAPN, 2010; Veit-Wilson, 1999). The Minimum Income Standard for Portugal (RAP) research project intends to contribute to this goal by developing a standard, which will answer the question “What level of income is needed to allow an acceptable standard of living in Portugal?”The headline indicator of monetary poverty currently used at the EU level, as well as in Portugal, is a purely relative income poverty measure, that establishes the poverty threshold as the amount of a percentage of median equivalent household income per adult of each living country (Machado et al., 2009; Pereira, 2010;). Several criticisms have been raised to the use of purely relative measures (Bradshaw et al., 2011; Machado et al., 2009; Pereira, 2010;). One of its main drawbacks is the complete delinking of the poverty threshold from an adequate level of income to human functioning in a specific society (Pereira, 2010), which has an explicit normative content. This is of high relevance both for measuring poverty and for the public discussion of the adequacy of social minimum in social transfers.The dissatisfaction with the dominant relative measure and the search for sound alternatives to assess poverty and adequacy led to a renewed interest in budgets standards methodologies in the EU. Over the last few years reference budgets were developed in several European countries, e.g. the ‘Minimum Income standard (MIS) for Britain’ (http://www.minimumincomestandard.org) that was replicated in Ireland and in the Netherlands (Bradshaw & Mayhew, 2011) and the reference budgets developed in Austria, Belgian, Bulgaria and Spain in the context of the project «Standard Budgets’» (http://www.referencebudgets.eu). Reference budgets can be used as “benchmarks for benefits, tax credits, foster care allowances; and to assess the affordability of housing, minimum/’living’ wages, income-based charges and penalties, and many other purposes” (Bradshaw et al., 2008: 4). Most recently, the study contracted by the EC on measurement of extreme/absolute poverty explicitly recommends the development of a EU consensual budget standard (Bradshaw & Mayhew, 2011).In Portugal, the Parliament approved in 2008 a resolution recommending the government to define a monetary poverty threshold according to the level of national income and the living standard conditions in the Portuguese society to serve as an official reference for the definition and evaluation of public policies to eradicate poverty (Parliamentary Resolution No. 31/2008), following a national petition undertaken by a significant number of citizens. Despite this, the Laeken purely relative income poverty measure is still adopted as the Portuguese «official» poverty measure and the decisions on the amount of social minima are not based on any estimation of adequacy (Pereira, 2010). With rare exceptions (Pereira, 2010) the more recent Portuguese scientific research hasn’t embraced this goal of defining an adequate level of income. The RAP research project intends to fill this gap.The RAP research project will combine the ‘consensual budget standards’ with the ‘expert budget standards’ approach to estimate a poverty threshold (or an adequate level of income), replicating, with the required adaptation to Portugal, the methodology developed by Jonathan Bradshaw

2


(York University, UK), in the Research Centre Family Budget Unit (FBU), and by researchers at the Centre for Research in Social Policy (CRSP), to determine a MIS for Britain (Bradshaw, 2008 e Smith et al., 2009). The expected outputs of RAP are: a) a methodology to construct reference budgets and estimate an adequate level of income well adapted to the Portuguese reality, based upon a consensual approach with a sound scientific support; b) a methodology for annual updating of the income standard; c) an estimation of the adequate level of income for different household types in Portugal; d) an assessment of poverty in Portugal and of the social policies designed to combat it, using the estimated standard; e) to investigate the historical context of the results of such research.

Poverty measurement in Portugal and approaches to the estimation of a monetary poverty threshold

The studies that pioneered the scientific approach to poverty measurement in Portugal (Costa et al., 1985; Silva et al., 1989) used monetary poverty thresholds based on an expert normative amount for food expenditure and empirical observation of Engel coefficients. After that, the annual updating of this poverty threshold has been used several times on research (Pereirinha, 1995; Pereirinha 1996; Pereirinha et al., 1999; Pereirinha, 2006). More recently, the use of EUROSTAT data was accompanied by a change of orientation on the choice of a monetary poverty threshold (Pereirinha & Carolo, 2010), and the previous scientific and normative orientation was abandoned, delinking the poverty threshold from the income required to meet basic needs or achieve the minimum acceptable way of life (Pereira, 2010).In general, one may find four approaches to the estimation of a monetary poverty threshold (Pereira, 2010): a) the budget standard approach; b) the empirical approach of material deprivation; c) the inequality approach or income relative approach; and d) the subjective approach. The only approaches that estimate the poverty threshold with reference to some minimum standard are the first two. According to the budget standard approach, the minimum income is estimated based on the cost of a basket of essential consumption goods. According to the empirical approach of material deprivation, the minimum income standard is the income level that better breaks the population into those deprived and not deprived according to a set of deprivation indicators. The former was used in the first research studies on poverty in Portugal (Costa et al., 1985; Silva et al., 1989), while the latter was used by Pereira (2010) to estimate a monetary poverty line, both on the basis of quantitative analysis of the micro data from the Household Budget Surveys (HBSs) of the Portuguese National Bureau of Statistics.In both the budget standard approach and the empirical approach of material deprivation, the estimation of a minimum living standard is required, and three methods are possible intending this aim (Pereira, 2010): 1) to support it in the scientific research, mainly in the areas of nutrition and health; 2) to support it on the inquiry of the social perception of needs, using population sample surveys or discussion groups; 3) to support it on the observation of normal or common living standard which may be observed in the society. The first one was used by Costa et al. (1985) to estimate the food basket that met the basic nutritional needs. In Pereira (2010) the three methods were used and combined to select indicators of the minimum living standard as widely accepted in Portugal.

3


According to the inequality approach or income relative approach, the current dominant approach in line with EUROSTAT recommendations, the focus is located on relative low incomes rather on adequacy to avoid serious harm, as proposed by the Theory of Human Needs developed by Doyal & Gough (1991), or to human functioning in society, as proposed by the Capabilities Approach , developed by Sen (1999). The RAP research project intends to return to the budget standard approach to the estimation of the poverty threshold in Portugal considering, in the analytical frameworks of the Theory of Human Need and the Capabilities Approach, that: i) the minimum income standard should take into account the amount of resources required to an adequate functioning in the society; ii) these minimum standards depend on the social, cultural and historical contexts; iii) the identification of the fundamental functionings or of the basic needs satisfiers “requires public discussion and a democratic understanding and acceptance”(Sen, 1999: 99).

The Budget Standards approaches As Fisher (2007) puts in evidence, in the last decades the poverty research based on budgets standards approach knew a significant impulse. According to Veit-Wilson (1999) there are four crucial questions that must be answered when developing budget standards to estimate adequacy: Adequate for what?; Adequate for whom?; Adequate for how long? and Adequate according to whom? Several variant approaches to developing budget standards have been recently developed in European and Anglophone countries (Bradshaw, 2008; Deeming, 2005; Fisher, 2007; Hoff et al., 2010), based on different answers to these questions.

Figure 1: Budget Standards Approaches in Europe Adequacy for what? [Standards of Living]

Adequate for whom? Adequate according to whom?

Netherlands [2010]The minimum agreed uponNISR / NIFFI

«Minimum standard of living»

«Average citizens»(five households types)

«Average citizens»

Great Britain [2008] Minimum Income for BritainCRSP

«Essential minimum» or «acceptable» living standard (including social needs)

«General population »(four households types)

General population with input from experts

United Kingdom [2005] Minimum Income for Healthy LivingLSHTM

«Minimum Income for Healthy Living» (including some social integration needs)

Elderly individual and couple

Experts

Ireland [2004], VPSJ «Low cost but acceptable» standard of living

Citizens at risk of poverty(three households types)

Experts with input from low-income population

Great Britain [1993]FUB

«Low cost but acceptable» and «modest but adequate» standards of living

«Average citizens»(six households types)

Experts with input from representatives of the general population

Source: Adapted from Fisher (2007: 18/19), Veit-Wilson (1998) and Hoff et al. (2010)Note: the BS approaches presented doesn’t cover all the recent works developed in European countries.

4


As we can see in the Figure 1, some of the recent Budget Standard approaches in European countries share the proposal to define one or more standards of living, despite reported differences in the reference pattern that is used to establish them (adequacy for what?). In this plan the differences do not appear to be merely semantic even if the formulation is close to or equivalent, such as, for example, the «minimum standard» and «low-cost but acceptable standard» because, namely, to consider or not the social needs establishes a distinctive character on adequacy. In these cases, often, the minimum means minimum subsistence, which is the name commonly used for budget measures which include the cost only of what are asserted to be irreducible physiological necessities (food, clothing, fuel/hygiene, housing); they exclude the costs of social necessities. (Veit-Wilson, 1998:29) Comparatively, one other important aspect relates to the target (adequacy for whom?). The majority of works is oriented to the citizens in general and has a universalistic proposal while others adopt a categorical orientation (e.g. citizens at risk of poverty). Finally, and probably the most distinctive aspect is the role assigned to experts and the general public in composing the standard budgets (adequacy according to whom?). Two main orientations are present: an expert-based determination and an approach in which the evidence is based on how the population defines its minimum standards. Despite that, in some studies we observe a hybrid method with different combinations of experts and population determination.

In his revision of the more recent works on standard budgets Fisher (2007) summarises the advantages and disadvantages of the budget standard approach. As strength the literature points out is its transparency. The argument is that

not only the experts but also members of the general public can clearly see the style of life that families on the budget would be leading […] in contrast, it is much more difficult to discern clearly what style of life is implied by a poverty line set at a particular percentage of median income, or a poverty line calculated using a particular multiplier and food plan (Fisher, 2007: 4).

At the same time is also acknowledged as an advantage of this approach its flexibility, based on the possibility for people debating a budget to propose adding or taking out a specific item, or changing a specific assumption in it (Fisher, 2007: 4).

As disadvantages of the budget standard, namely in the expert-based variant, some analysts emphasise the development of inadequate patterns for the low-income families and the assumption of their domestic-science expertise (see Fisher, 2007: 5). Another weakness pointed out, namely when the standard is built for the low-income population, is the risk of circularity between spending patterns and budget standards, making a direct and linear equivalence between budgetary practice and budgetary need (see Fisher, 2007: 6).The difficulty of producing a consensus is also indicated as one of the weaknesses of the approach of standard budgets. Curiously, this is exactly claimed as a distinctive character of the consensual approach, a variant of the budget standards, more recently developed.

5


The Consensual Budget Standards approachesAs was referred, probably, the most distinctive aspect on budget standard approaches is the role assigned to experts and the general public in composing the standard budgets. In this context, the approach in which the evidence is based on how the population defines its minimum standards may cover, in fact, substantively different approaches, including studies in which budgets are deducted from opinion surveys and those that are made from direct participatory strategies of the population, mainly through discussion groups. Walker (1987), one of the more relevant authors in the introduction of the called consensual budget approach, stressed the deep limitations of the survey techniques to produce a social consensus about the basic or essential needs. He argues that

Whereas the deliberation of budget standards committees take years, the people are typically asked for immediate responses to tightly worded questions about complex and sensitive issues to which few of them will previously have given much thought. (Walker, 1987: 213).

He uses the term introduced by Mack and Lansley (1985) consensus by coincidence to capture the nature of the consensus produced in these circumstances by contrast to the consensus by consent or compromise method inherent of the interactive process of consensus potentiated by the groups discussion.Walker proposal is based on the assumption that the poverty is a social or cultural concept according with the prevailing cultural standard (Walker, 1987: 213) or, as Veit-Wilson emphasises, there is a «societal» origin of the criteria by which any level of living is judged to be a reasonable minimum (Veit-Wilson, 1998: 11).In this framework the use of the qualitative methods are strongly recommended as a pathway to work in a social conception of poverty and overcome the

large areas of ignorance about the meaning and salience of poverty: the experiential, social and psychological bases of people’s views; the perceived relationship between poverty and adequacy; and, perhaps most important from the point of view of establishing a socially approved budget, precisely what is understood by the concept of adequacy – adequacy for what? (Walker, 1987: 224)

In this perspective, it is essential to replace the experts judgment only by a wide cross section of the public and a careful mix of social groups, not necessarily responding to the requirement of the statistical representativeness but the more close as possible of the typical composition of the population, in household type, gender, age, cultural and economic background and not only the participants in poverty or necessity.As manner to amplify public participation in the budget standard consensual model, Walker conceptualises the process of definition of a socially approved budget derived from the deliberations of a series of group discussions (Walker, 1987: 224). According to this conception each focus group constituted represents a different household type and the process includes different standard research stages. In general terms:

During the first stage [orientation groups] of the research the participants were asked to formulate a description of the concept of the “essential minimum” and to devise the living conditions of a hypothetical person who could be regarded as representative of “their”

6


household type [«case study»]. New groups [task groups and check-back groups] were then asked to compile baskets of goods, services and activities for these hypothetical people which, in their views, were essential to achieving a minimum standard of living. The members of each group compiled a basket for a reference person of the same gender and from the same household type as themselves. The resulting baskets were then costed by the researchers, on the basis of prices charged in shops which the participants themselves had recommended. Another new group of people [final negotiation groups] then scrutinised the baskets, not least in light of the financial implications for society. They discussed any economies of scale and adjusted the lists where necessary. (adapted from Hoff et al., 2010:17, group names and emphasis added)

This model was applied and refined by Walker, Middleton and other researchers of the Loughborough University’s Centre for Research in Social Policy (CRSP) in different projects in UK and inspired similar works in other different countries in Europe and abroad.

Christopher Deeming, a researcher associated to the studies of the «Minimum Income for Healthy Living», developed by the LSHTM, analyse the three major strands of empirical research in UK and discusses the characteristics and assumptions of these models (see Figure 2). In his argumentation Deeming (2005) frame these approaches in different poverty research traditions (Rowntree absolutist tradition versus Townsend relativist approach) and emphasises their epistemological differences particularly as regards the relationship between needs and wants: MIHL emphasis on health knowledge, CSB expressed cultural conventions and LCA behavioural emphasis (see Deeming 2005: 628).Existing, according Deeming, general agreement between the researchers on the utility of «need» (physical and social) for determining provision within our new era of welfare rights and social responsibilities (Dean, 2003 quoted by Deeming, 2005: 627), the crucial question is how the needs are interpreted. At this point of view these approaches would be conceptually different and based in different methodologies (see Deeming, 2005: figure1). But, nowadays, without prejudice to the persistent differences between these approaches and methodologies, it is important to emphasise some integration and convergence, alias to the author proposes. In reality, the CBS, in its actual formulation considers the contributions of the experts in at least two stages of the process in a hybrid model, between one pure consensual approach and the experts consultation (see figure 3), as the project Minimum Income Standard for Britain (2008) stresses:

The aim of the project was to develop a minimum income standard blending the best elements of the two main methodologies that have been used to develop budget standards in Britain in recent years. The FBU approach has used documented guidance, expert opinion and statistics to determine what items should be included in the budget to achieve a given living standard, informed by recognised standards (e.g. nutritional and heating standards), subject experts (e.g. dieticians), consumer surveys, manufacturers’ evidence (e.g. about product lifespans), and expenditure and consumption data. The consensual budget standards (CBS) method developed over the last decade at CRSP takes a similar approach to the FBU, but, instead of panels of professional experts, ordinary people representing different family or household types were brought together to form budget standards committees considering minimum needs. […]Blending the methodologies allows the views of experts to be reconciled with those of

7


ordinary people and, correspondingly, allows budgets based on social consensus to be tested against expert knowledge and research. The present project has addressed this by holding ‘consensual’ discussions among ordinary people to set the budgets, informed at successive stages by feedback from experts.(Bradshaw et al, 2008: 3).

Figure 2: UK Budget Studies for setting Income Standards (Deeming, 2005)FBU«Low cost but acceptable (LCA)»

LSHTM«Minimum Income for Healthy Living (MIHL)»

CRSP«Consensual Budget Standards»

Traditions of poverty research

Townsend relativist tradition

Rowntree absolute tradition (Later studies including social expenditures)

Townsend relativist tradition extension

Characteristics - Based upon empirical survey data of prevailing standards and essential necessities drawn from the surveys- Integration of expert knowledge- Representative of consumers participation- Social Sciences based

- Based upon experts budget for nutrition, budget for physical activity and psychosocial budget based on empirical research- External experts consulting- Top-down tradition- Health knowledge

- Based upon «lay experts» living in similar households («own budget standard committees»)- Sequential series of discussion groups- Social Sciences based- Bottom-up approach to needs avoiding expert prescription

Needs and wants - Wants becomes a social need if recognized by most people in society

- Potential requirements become health requirements if there is solid research evidence

- Wants becomes a social need if there is consensus among discussants

Source: Own elaboration based on Deeming (2005)

Policy relevance of Budget Standards Consensual Approach in Portugal According to Paugam (1999) framework, various orientations have been followed in the political definition of social minima in Portugal, either in social protection or in social assistance policies: a) the «statutory approach», based upon the fixation of a minimum income through social transfers that does not change the established hierarchical of social status in the society, and b) the «needs approach», based on provision of social support intending to meet basic needs, particularly food and shelter, as established by experts or government agencies, as it has been in Portugal the studies targeting the determination of the minimum wage in the end of the 1960s (Branco, 2001). However, in the field of minimum social standards, the principle of status has been superimposed on the principle of human needs. We are therefore far from the marshallian conception of social citizenship as «the right to a modicum of economic welfare and security to the right to share to the full in the social heritage and live the life of civilised being according to the standards prevailing in the society» (Marshall, 1992 [1950]: 8).

Until 1974, there were no guaranteed minimum social standards in Portugal as a social right. Until then, the social protection in Portugal was ensured by a system of compulsory social insurance, where effective development begins in the 60s, and that on the eve of the Revolution of April did

8


guarantee only a limited warranty of the employees and their families and an equally limited set of social risks. The sectors of the working population not covered by the compulsory social insurance or groups not included in the labour market had only as public social protection the social assistance schemes that wasn’t recognized as a social right, but only a temporary and precarious help, unpredictable and discretionary.In May 1974 it was created in Portugal the social pension as a right-based social assistance. Despite the highly restrictive nature of the population covered by this new social right and its low standard of income, the social pension is the first social minimum recognized in Portugal.

In some European countries budget standards have been used to determine their main official poverty threshold or their lower poverty thresholds, to fix the minimum income schemes, or to provide a standard against which to assess poverty thresholds and minimum income schemes (Bradshaw & Mayhew, 2011). In Portugal, despite of the international and European commitments and the resolution approved by the parliament (Resolution No. 31/2008) neither the amount of social minima neither the assessment of social transfers is based in a scientifically derived objective adequate income level. Neither of the orientations followed in Portugal integrate the experiential knowledge and views of the general population to determine adequacy. Furthermore, the Guaranteed Minimum Income created in 1986 is oriented for the universalisation of social protection, according a beveredgian orientation, but not the effective reduction of poverty and satisfaction of basic needs, in line with a marshallian conception.

All these issues are quite relevant to a consensual approach to minimum income standards, namely for social pension (Branco, 2004), in practical terms an official (extreme) poverty line in Portugal. Besides the multiple uses reference budgets have, consensual budgets will contribute in Portugal to the public debate and discussion on social minima and because of its transparency is more likely to facilitate public consensus on the amount of social benefits.

In this light, an adequate income standard socially accepted in Portugal (RAP) will be a benchmark that will contribute to inform discussions about poverty in Portugal, as well as to the social policy decisions and public policy in general on social benefits, social minimum, minimum wage, fiscal measures or others.The RAP, naturally, does not replace other forms of poverty measurement and definition of minimum social standards In Portugal, but will help to «ground» them in an informed analysis of income that are suitable for a decent living in Portugal. In this sense, the RAP contributes to the interpretation of the forms of measurement and definition of public policies in Portugal, providing a benchmark for minimum social pensions, minimum wage, etc.

Minimum Income Standard for Portugal: a research project in progress

The Minimum Income Standard for Portugal (RAP) is a project affiliated with the budget consensual approach, that replicates, with the adequate adaptation, the design of the Minimum Income for Britain, developed by the teams of FBU and CRSP to define a minimum income standard in the UK (Bradshaw et al., 2008, Smith et al., 2009) and is also similar to the study

9


developed in the Netherlands by the NISR and NIFFI Institutes (Hoff et al., 2010), opening the possibility for international comparison of the process and its results with other European countries.In scientific terms, RAP main proposal is to contribute to reintroduce the estimation of income adequacy in the Portuguese social sciences poverty research agenda.

Objectives:Global objective: To develop in Portugal a methodology to estimate a robust, defensible and scientifically grounded Minimum Income Standard (MIS), to be used in poverty analysis and monitoring and to inform as well as evaluate social policies designed to combat poverty.Specific objectives:a) To identify basic needs – achievements that all human beings should be able to realize and nobody should be deprived of – and the main satisfiers of those needs in Portugal, using a scientific sound methodology that is rooted in the views of ordinary people and validated by expert opinion;b) To identify robust, defensible and scientifically grounded minimum income standards for different household types, by using a budget standard approach (to calculate the minimum income needed) that is firmly grounded in consensus among ordinary people living in each household type and at the same time informed and validated by expert knowledge about basic living requirements and actual expenditure patterns and by providing detailed explanations of the rationale underlying each budget standard;c) To reconstruct the historical background and recent itinerary of minimum social standards in Portugal and analyse the adequacy of current minimum social standards in Portugal to achieve the socially accepted minimum standard of living;d) To test the validity of the equivalences scales implied both in benefits and in poverty research in Portugal;e) To analyse poverty and develop a poverty profile in Portugal for 2011 using the minimum income standards as the reference poverty thresholds for different household types;f) To develop a methodology for adjusting the minimum income standards over time (updating and rebasing).

Research Design and Methods As Veit-Wilson has argued: ‘Both science and consistency suggest that the only reliable way of finding out what are socially defined necessities and the income levels at which they are available is to carry out social research’ (Veit-Wilson, 1999). This research project uses the budget standards approach to determine a socially agreed and empirically based minimum income standard, combining: 1) perceptions on needs and common knowledge on goods and services needed to satisfy those needs, held by ordinary people, 2) scientific and technical knowledge about basic living requirements, and 3) observation of actual living and spending patterns. The methodology and research design adopted in this research project to determine a minimum income standard for Portugal are, with some minor changes and adaptations, the ones developed for MIS for Britain . One of the main features of this research design is its methodological diversity, combining diverse information sources (expert knowledge, general public knowledge and secondary sources) and different data analysis methodologies (qualitative for data from focus groups discussions held with general public and quantitative for the produced budget standards data and surveys microdata).

10


The original research design (developed in MIS Britain) comprises a series of stages with each stage informing the development of the subsequent stage, as illustrated in Figure 3 (Bradshaw et al., 2008: 7). It includes 8 research stages, of which five are stages of discussion groups with the general public (orientation groups, task groups, checkback groups, final negotiation groups and geographic groups) and two consist mainly on desk-based work by the research team and the ‘expert professionals’.

Figure 3: Minimum income standard research stages (Bradshaw et al., 2008: 7)

11


At various stages before and after the organization of these discussion groups, there is an input from the experts and/or researchers to contextualize the discussions and provide scientific input and guidance (for details see Bradshaw et al., 2008).

The main changes introduced by our research design, relative to the original research design, are related to the two first stages of the original MIS Britain: these two first stages are combined in one orientation stage . The theoretical framework developed by Doyal and Gough (1991) is used to structure the inputs, the guidance and the outputs of orientation groups and the overall results of this stage. A review of secondary data sources was undertaken to be used as an input to the orientation groups and a workshop with experts and researchers will be held in between the orientation groups. At end of this stage, a report will be produced analysing, comparing and discussing the definition of the «essential minimum» resulting from the orientation groups (compromise method) with the results arising from a standard based on consensual survey methods, using data from the Eurobarometer surveys on Poverty and Social Exclusion (consensus by coincidence), and with the results arising from a standard based on prevailing patterns of consumption, using relevant survey and census data (behavioural approach). Additionally, we extend the scope of original MIS Britain research project including in our project the reconstruction of the historical background and recent itinerary of minimum social standards in Portugal, in order to contextualize the MIS development, and a poverty analysis in Portugal for 2010 using the minimum income standards as the reference poverty thresholds for different household types.

As in MIS for Britain, the first stage (orientation stage) aims to operationalize the concept of the ‘essential minimum’ consensually accepted in Portugal. Although using different approaches for purposes of triangulation, the ‘essential minimum’ will be mainly based on the results of the 9 orientation groups that will be held at this stage. Three orientation groups one for each of the individual types considered in this stage – pensioners, working age adults without children and working age parents (with children living with them) – will be held in each of the three different non atypical areas in Portugal selected by the research team. This three non atypical areas (three different municipalities) were selected based on census data and on the measures of territory characteristics in mainland Portugal for rurality, accessibility and economic context, previously developed by two team researchers (Pereira et al., 2009).Subsequently, a set of costed budgets standards for 10 individual types will be developed. In order to achieve this aim 10 task groups (and 5 check back groups) with the general public of the relevant type will be held in one of the three non atypical areas selected. The following eight individual types were selected in accordance with the suggestions made by the RAP external consultants from CRSP: single male pensioners (living alone), single female pensioners (living alone), single male working age (living alone), single female working age (living alone), partnered mothers, partnered fathers, and two for different aged children (to be defined). The RAP research team has decided to include two other individual types considering the suggestions made by the RAP national consultants and an analysis of the distribution of household types in Portugal: lone parents and young adults (from 18 to 34 years old) living with their parents. The costed budget standards for individual types will be combined to produce budget standards for household types, using decisions made about economies of scale and integrating the perceived variations in need according to gender and age, that will be compared to actual spending patterns

12


of relevant households observed in the Portuguese Household Budget Survey of 2010-2011. A final negotiation stage will be held to reach a final agreement on outstanding matters and to check, verify and validate the budget standards produced for household types. This stage will involve 3 final negotiating groups in the same non atypical area selected for the task and check back groups: pensioners, working age adults without children and working age parents (with children living with them).This research recognizes that there are important interpersonal variations, associated with different internal characteristics and different external circumstances (Sen, 1999), in converting income into basic needs satisfaction. Therefore a national minimum income will not create an acceptable living standard for every individual (Bradshaw et al., 2008). In order to overcome this problem, and again following the MIS for Britain research design, the budget standards will be developed considering a typical individual in each individual type through the development of a case study vignette for each individual type (including in all case study vignettes some critical assumptions about housing, disability, health, and so forth) – living in a non atypical area of Portugal. It should be stressed that most minimum social standards take no account of the referred interpersonal variations. Nevertheless, our research design, following MIS for Britain research design, includes a task to inform the project of possible geographical variation in needs and prices that will be taken into account when presenting the results of MIS for Portugal. The research team acknowledges that specific research studies will have to be undertaken, in the future, to determine extra needs of particular groups, as in MIS for Britain is recognised (Bradshaw et al., 2008).

Recruitment, selection of participants and composition of discussion groupsThirty-one discussion groups with 8 to 10 participants each will be held. As in MIS for Britain, participants in each group will be drawn from the family or individual types under discussion in each case – the rationale for this is that people living in a particular household type are best placed to construct a budget for such a household (Bradshaw et al., 2008). Those attending the groups will be purposively selected to ensure a mix of socio-economic circumstances – the rationale for this is to ensure that the minimum income standard developed is suitable for general population (Bradshaw et al., 2008).

Participants for the focus groups are being (and will be) recruited using three different recruitment procedures. One, that we have called «drop-off», consisting in fulfilling a participation form with personal and familiar characteristics dropped on a sealed box located in an institution opened to public and oriented to public service – around 15 spots in each one of the municipalities selected. Another procedure is based on an on-line inscription, using the project site (www.rendimentoadequado.org.pt). The final recruitment procedure, conducted in each municipality after the results (in terms potential participants characteristics) from the two previous ones are known, is the only one involving a face-to-face interaction between the research team and the potential participants and is the one that allow us to, intentionally, control the diversity among potential focus group participants. These procedures are articulated with a database construction and data analysis on personal and familiar characteristics of the persons who had demonstrated the intention to participate in one of the several focus groups. By such process we are able to identify the gaps of the two first recruitment procedures. So, the third procedure of the recruitment

13

http://www.rendimentoadequado.org.pt/


process -is based on a face to face interview inviting people with specific characteristics (the ones needed to fill the identified gaps) to participate in the study The databases constructed (one for each group) are used to randomly select group members considering pre-defined quotas aimed to ensure a mix of socio-economic circumstances in each specific group.

The recruitment and selection process adopted revealed to be complex but positive, allowing to reach diversity among subjects (within groups) since we have opted for mixed groups including persons from different income levels (including persons with no income at all); persons from different geographical areas within the same municipality – covering predominantly urban, but also peri-urban and mostly rural living areas; including men and women; persons with several school degrees; persons from several ages.

Ethic standards in the recruitment and selection process are assured by different mechanisms: informed consent and normal procedures to ensure confidentiality and anonymity of all participants..

Bibliographic References

Albuquerque, P., Arcanjo, M., Escária, V. Nunes, F. and Pereirinha, J. (2010). Retirement and the Poverty of the Elderly: the Case of Portugal". Journal of Income Distribution, 19(3-4): 41-64.

Bastos, Amélia. and Nunes, F. (2009c). Child Poverty in Portugal - Dimensions and Dynamics, Childwood, Vol. 16 (1), pp. 67-87.

Bradshaw, J. & Mayhew, E. (2011). The Measurement of Extreme Poverty in the European Union. European Commission, Directorate General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion [Available on-line].

Bradshaw, J., Middleton, S., Davis, A,, Oldfield, N, Smith, N., Cusworth, L. & Williams, J. (2008). A minimum income standard for Britain: What people think. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Branco, F. (2001). A face lunar dos direitos sociais - virtualidades e limites do RMG como direito de cidadania em Portugal. Tese de Doutoramento em Serviço Social, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de S. Paulo, Abril de 2001.

Branco, F. (2004). A Pensão Social como primeiro pilar de uma rede universal de Assistência Social em Portugal in A.Sposati (Ed.) Protecção Social de Cidadania (pp. 247-264). São Paulo: Cortez Editora.

Costa, A. B., Silva, M., Pereirinha, J., & Matos, M. (1985). A pobreza em Portugal. Lisboa: Cáritas.

Deeming, C. (2005). Minimum Income Standards: How Might Budget Standards be set for the UK? Journal of Social Policy, 34(04), 619-636.

Doyal, L. & Gough, I. (1991). A theory of Human Need. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

EAPN (2010). Adequacy of Minimum Income in the EU. EAPN Explainer 2. [Available on-line]

Fisher, G. (2007) An Overview of Recent Work on Standard Budgets in the United States and Other Anglophone Countries. [Available on-line]

Hoff, S., van Gaalen, C., Soede, A., Luten, A., Vrooman, C., &Lamers, S.. (2010). The minimum agreed upon. Consensual budget standards for the Netherlands. Haia: The Netherlands Institute for Social Research.

Machado, Carla, Paulino, Daniel and Nunes, Francisco (2009b). Deprivation Analysis Based on Bayesian Latent Class Models, Journal of Applied Statistics, Vol. 36, No. 8, August, pp. 871-891.

14


Mack, J. and Lansley, S. (1985) 'How poor is too poor? Defining poverty' in Mack, J. and Lansley, S. Poor Britain, London, George Allen & Unwin.

Marshall, T.H.(1992 [1950]). Citizenship and social Class. London: Pluto Press.

Paugam, S.(1999). L’Europe face à la pauvreté: les experiences nationales de revenue minimum . Paris: La documentation Française.

Pereira, E. (2001). Implicações da Evolução do Conceito de Pobreza para a Luta Contra a Pobreza: Uma Reflexão. In J. Ferreira, J. Pereirinha, J. Silva & F. Mendes (coords.), O Modelo Latino de Protecção Social: Reflexões sobre o Estado-Providência em Portugal, Espanha e Brasil. Lisboa: Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestão.

Pereira, E. (2010). Pobreza e Ruralidade: Uma análise espacial em Portugal Continental. Tese de doutoramento em Sociologia Económica e das Organizações. Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestão da Universidade Técnica de Lisboa.

Pereira, E., Pereirinha, J. & Passos, J. (2009). Desenvolvimento de índices de caracterização do território para o estudo da pobreza rural em Portugal Continental. Revista Portuguesa de Estudos Regionais, 21, pp. 07-35.

Pereira, E., Queiroz, C., Pereira, H., & Vicente, L. (2005). Ecosystem Services and Human Well-Being: a Participatory Study in a Mountain Community in Portugal. Ecology and Society , 10, n.2.

Pereirinha, J. (1995). Poverty and Social Exclusion in Portugal: a general overview of situations, processes and policies. Druzboslovne Razprave, XI, n. 19-20, pp.169-182.

Pereirinha, J. (1996). Welfare States and Anti-Poverty Regimes: The Case of Portugal. South European Society & Politics, 1, n. 3, Winter 1996, pp. 198-218.

Pereirinha, J. (2003). Redistributive effects of social protection: new challenges for its measurement. Paper presented at the 23rd CEIES Seminar on Social Protection Statistics. Lisbon 2-3 October 2003.

Pereirinha, J. (2006). Poverty and anti-poverty policies in Portugal: the experience of the Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI). In M. Petmesidou & C. Papatheodrou (eds), Poverty and Social Deprivation in the Mediterranean: Trends, Policies and Welfare Prospects in the New Millennium (pp. 117-141). Zed Books.

Pereirinha, J. (coord), F. Nunes, A. Bastos, S. F. Casaca, R. Fernandes & C. Machado (2008). Género e Pobreza: Impacto e Determinantes da Pobreza no Feminino. Lisboa: Comissão para a Cidadania e Igualdade de Género (CIG).

Pereirinha, J. & Carolo, D. (2010). The development of the Welfare State in Portugal: trends in social expenditure between 1938 and 2003. Revista de Historia Economica/Journal of Iberian and Latin American Economic History, 28(3): 469-501

Pereirinha, J. Arcanjo, M. & Nunes, F. (2009). The Portuguese welfare system: from a corporative regime to a European welfare state. In K. Schubert, S. Hegelich, U. Bazant (eds), The Handbook of European Welfare Systems (pp. 398-414). London & New York: Routledge.

Pereirinha, J., Nunes, F., Bastos, A. & Casaca, S. (2009). Women and Poverty: a gender sensitive approach. Review of Socio-Economics, 38(5), pp. 764-778

Pereirinha, J., Rodrigues, C. F., Nunes, F., Perista, H., Cardoso, A., & Ferreira, L. V. (1999). Exclusão Social em Portugal: estudo de situações e processos e avaliação das políticas sociais . Lisboa: Centro de Investigação sobre Economia Portuguesa (CISEP) & Centro de Estudos para a Intervenção Social (CESIS).

Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Nova York: Oxford University Press

Silva, M., Costa, A. B., Cardoso, A., José, B., Pereirinha, J., Pimenta, M., Sequeira, M. J. & Maranhão, M. J. (1989). Pobreza Urbana em Portugal: Um inquérito a famílias e habitat degradado, nas cidades de Lisboa, Porto e Setúbal. Lisboa: Centro de Reflexão Cristã.

Smith, N., Phung, V.-H. Davis, A. and Hirsch, D. (2009). A minimum income standard for Northern Ireland. Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Veit-Wilson, J. (1998). Setting Adequacy Standards: How governments define minimum incomes. Bristol: Policy Press.

15


Veit-Wilson, J. (1999). Poverty and Adequacy of Social Security. in: J Ditch (ed), Introduction to Social Security. Policies, benefit and poverty. Routledge, London. pp 78-109.

Walker, R. (1987). Consensual Approaches to the Definition of Poverty: Towards an Alternative Methodology. Journal of Social Policy, 16(02), 213-226.

16

Documents

€¦ · Web viewWhat does it mean to have a minimum acceptable standard of living in Portugal today? -