臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：臺灣貧窮門檻與測量的建立：FCSU的應用
書刊名：臺大社會工作學刊
作者：王德睦 引用關係／呂朝賢 引用關係／何華欽 引用關係
作者(外文)：Wang, Te-mu／Leu, Chao-hsien／Ho, Hua-chin
出版日期：2003
卷期：8
頁次：頁1-46
主題關鍵詞：家戶規模；貧窮門檻；貧窮人口組成；Family size；Poverty threshold；Poverty population composition
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(21) 博士論文(4) 專書(0) 專書論文(1)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:18
  • 共同引用共同引用:390
  • 點閱點閱:94
貧窮門檻是一個運用極廣，且相當實用的指標：一方面它可以作為不同人口群、家戶、區域、時間的經濟福祉(Economic Well-Being)之指標，以做為檢視經濟發展與公共政策成效之評量基準；另一方面它亦可當做政策與方案之服務對象範圍界定之參考，可讓我們知道社會中還有那些弱勢者，仍需政府之介入來滿足其需求。本研究的目的在於，檢討相關文獻中貧窮測量方式，並以台灣的資料對較為合宜或資料可及的方式做適當的模擬。在可取得的次級資料的條件與政策的施行便利的限制條件下，本文使用Citro and Michael(1995)的FCSU預算乘數法來設定四口之家（兩大人兩小孩）預算，並考慮家戶規模、調整合適的均等比來設定貧窮門檻。 經過本文FCSU預算乘數法的模擬設定，貧民率為3.21%、貧戶率為4.49%。研究發現合宜的均等比調整會提升小戶量家戶的貧窮門檻，使得社會中處於不利地位的貧窮老人家戶可以被彰顯現出來。而合宜的均等比設定也可以降低大戶量家戶的貧窮門檻數值，讓我們不至於高估大戶量家戶的貧窮率，這正是均等比調整在貧窮門檻設定中所扮演的重要性。
Poverty threshold is a very practical and widely used indicator: it has been used as an indicator for the economic well-being of population groups, family, region and time period. Furthermore, it can be and has been used as the basis to evaluate economic development and to determine the effectiveness of public policy; and at the same time, it is also used as a reference to delineate the scope of needed services in policy and agenda formulation, and, therefore, provided us a clearer picture in identifying the disadvantaged groups that would need governmental intervention to meet their basic needs. The purpose of this research is, first, to review and to assess the existing literature on poverty threshold measurements. Once this first step is completed, using appropriate data, various measurements will be applied to the Taiwan situation to simulate the results of poverty rates and poverty compositions. Within the limitation of the available secondary data and the constrain of the convenience of policy promotion, FCSU method by Citro and Michael was used to calculate the budget of a family with two adults and two children. Taking into account family size and adjusting proper equivalence scale, the poverty threshold was also determined. Using FCSU method, our simulated study shows that the percentage of the poverty population is 3.21%, and that of the poverty family is 4.49%. It was found that adjusting equivalence scale will elevate the poverty threshold of the smaller family, thus the socially disadvantaged family, especially poor elderly households, will become more obvious and pronounced. With proper equivalence scale, the poverty threshold of the larger family will be reduced, and a more precise poverty proportion of it is also shown. Thus, it is very important that the equivalence scale is adjusted in setting up the poverty threshold.
期刊論文
1.Sen, Amartya(1976)。Poverty: An Ordinal Approach to Measurement。Econometrica，44(2)，219-231。  new window
2.Shorrocks, Anthony F.(1995)。Revisiting the Sen poverty index。Econometrica，63(5)，1225-1230。  new window
3.Thon, D.(1979)。On Measuring Poverty。Review of Income and Wealth，25(4)，429-439。  new window
4.呂朝賢(19960900)。貧窮女性化與貧窮程度的性別差異。人文及社會科學集刊，8(2)，221-256。new window  延伸查詢new window
5.林美伶、王德睦(200009)。貧窮門檻對貧窮率與貧窮人口組成之影響。臺灣社會福利學刊，1，93-124。new window  延伸查詢new window
6.Piachaud, David(1987)。Problems in the Definition and Measurement of Poverty。Journal of Social Policy，16(2)，147-164。  new window
7.Walker, Robert(1987)。Consensual Approaches to the Definition of Poverty : towards an alternative methodology。Journal of Social Policy，16(2)，213-226。  new window
8.Renwick, Trudi J.、Bergmann, Barbara R.(1993)。A budget-based definition of poverty: With an application to single-parent families。The Journal of Human Resources，28(1)，1-24。  new window
9.Watts, Harold W.(1980)。Special Panel Suggests Changes in BLS Family Budget Program。Monthly Labor Review，103(12)，3-10。  new window
10.Ringen, Stein(1988)。Direct and indirect measures of poverty。Journal of Social Policy，17(3)，351-365。  new window
11.萬育維(19920400)。貧窮問題與社會救助之間的關係探討：臺北市、高雄市低收入戶界定標準與社會救助措施之比較研究。輔仁學誌. 法管理學院之部，24，107-156。  延伸查詢new window
12.Goedhart, T.、Halberstadt, V.、Kapteyn, A.、van Praag, B. M. S.(1977)。The Poverty Line: Concept and Measurement。The Journal of Human Resources，12(4)，503-520。  new window
13.Kapteyn, Arie、Kooreman, Peter、Willemse, Rob(1988)。Some Methodological Issues in the Implementation of Subjective Poverty Definitions。The Journal of Human Resources，23(2)，222-242。  new window
14.呂朝賢(19990600)。社會救助問題：政策目的、貧窮的定義與測量。人文及社會科學集刊，11(2)，233-263。new window  延伸查詢new window
15.薛承泰(20000500)。臺灣地區單親戶之貧窮：以1998年為例。臺大社會工作學刊，2，151+153-189。new window  延伸查詢new window
16.薛承泰(19960400)。臺灣地區單親戶的數量、分佈與特性：以1990年普查為例。人口學刊，17，1-30。new window  延伸查詢new window
17.王德睦、何華欽、呂朝賢(20030400)。兒童與成人基本生活費用的差異。調查研究，13，5-38。new window  延伸查詢new window
18.李淑容(19960300)。由中美貧窮線現制之檢討論我國貧窮線之研擬。東吳社會工作學報，2，161-182。new window  延伸查詢new window
19.王正(1994)。社會救助、家戶人口規模與貧窮水準測定之研究。經社法治論叢，13，69-87。  延伸查詢new window
20.王金利(1994)。總合近似理想需求體系、等成員人數與臺灣家戶福利水準。台灣銀行季，45(3)，259-296。new window  延伸查詢new window
21.Foster, James、Greer, Joel、Thorbecke, Erik(1984)。A Class of Decomposable Poverty Measures。Econometrica，52(3)，761-766。  new window
22.Hagenaars, Aldi、Vos, Klaas de(1988)。The Definition and Measurement of Poverty。The Journal of Human Resources，23(2)，211-21。  new window
23.Hallerod, Bjorn(1995)。The Truly Poor: Direct and Indirect Consensual Measurement of Poverty in Sweden。Journal of European Social Policy，5(2)，111-29。  new window
24.Kakwani, N.(1980)。On a Class of Poverty Measures。Econometrica，48(2)，437-446。  new window
25.Orshansky, Mollie(1965)。Counting the Poor: Another look at the Poverty Profile。Social Secuity Bulletin，51(10)，25-51。  new window
26.Piachaud, David(1981)。Peter Townsend and the Holy Grail。New Society，57，419-21。  new window
27.Takayama, Noriyuki(1979)。Poverty, Income Inequality, and Their Measures: Professor Sen’s Axiomatic Approach Reconsidered。Econometrica，47(3)，747-760。  new window
28.Van Praag, B.M.S.、Hagenaars, A.J.M.、Weeren, H. van(1982)。Poverty in Europe。Review of Income and Wealth，28，345-59。  new window
29.Veit-Wilson, J.H.(1987)。Consensual Approach to Poverty Lines and Social Security。Journal of Social Policy，16(2)，183-211。  new window
30.Watts, Harold W.(1967)。The Iso-Prop Index: An Approach to the Determination of Differential Poverty Income Thresholds。Journal of Human Resources，2(1)，3-18。  new window
會議論文
1.Fisher, Gordon M.(2001)。Enough for a Family to Live On?—Questions from Members of the American Public and New Perspectives from British Social Scientists。Washington, D.C.。  new window
2.Martinez, Rosa、Ruiz-Huerta, Jesus(2000)。Income, Multiple Deprivation and Poverty: An Empirical Analysis Using Spanish Data。Poland。  new window
研究報告
1.Garner, Thesia I., et al.(1997)。Experimental Poverty Measurement for the 1990's。Washington DC.。  new window
學位論文
1.呂朝賢(1998)。臺灣的貧窮問題(博士論文)。國立中正大學。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.黃乃凡(1995)。台灣貧窮女性化的探討：女性戶長家戶貧窮現象之貫時性研究(碩士論文)。國立中正大學。  延伸查詢new window
3.林美伶(1999)。我國貧窮門檻之建構、調整與影響(碩士論文)。國立中正大學。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.孫健忠(2002)。台灣社會救助制度實施與建構之研究。臺北：時英。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.Townsend, Peter(1979)。Poverty in the United Kingdom: a Survey of Household Resources and Standards of Living。Penguin Books。  new window
3.內政部社會司(1997)。社會救助法。臺北：內政部社會司。  延伸查詢new window
4.George, Vic、Howards, Irving(1991)。Poverty Amidst Affluence--Britain and the United State。England：Edward Elgar。  new window
5.內政部社會司(1996)。社會救助法規彙編。臺北：內政部社會司。  延伸查詢new window
6.Bradshaw, Jonathan(1993)。Budget Standards for the United Kingdom。Avebury：Aldershot。  new window
7.Rowntree, B. Seebohm(1901)。Poverty: A Study of Town Life。London：Thomas Nelson and Sons。  new window
8.Gordon, D.、Pantazis, C.(1997)。Breadline Britain in the 1990s。Ashgate。  new window
9.林萬億、李淑容、王永慈(1995)。我國社會救助政策之研究。臺北市：內政部。  延伸查詢new window
10.Mack, Joanna、Lansley, Stewart(1985)。Poor Britain。London：George Allen & Unwin。  new window
11.Ruggles, Patricia(1990)。Drawing the Line: Alternative Poverty Measures and Their Implications for Public Policy。Washington, DC：The Urban Institute Press。  new window
12.Citro, Constance F.、Michael, Robert T.(1995)。Measuring Poverty: A New Approach。Washington, D.C.：National Academies Press。  new window
13.孫健忠(1995)。臺灣地區社會救助政策發展之研究。時英出版社。  延伸查詢new window
14.Atkinson, A. B.(1995)。Incomes and the Welfare State: Essays on Britain and Europe。Cambridge University Press。  new window
15.林萬億(19940000)。福利國家：歷史比較的分析。臺北：巨流。new window  延伸查詢new window
16.朱雲鵬(1987)。貧窮問題之探討：台灣地區資料之因素分解研究。專題選刊。台北。  延伸查詢new window
17.Betson, David(1990)。Alternative Estimates of the Cost of Children from the 1980-1986 Consumer Expenditure Survey. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation。Washington, D.C.。  new window
18.Fuchs, Victor R.(1965)。Toward a Theory of Poverty。The Concept of Poverty, Task Force on Economic Growth and Opportunity。Washington, DC。  new window
19.Schwarz, John E.、Volgy, Thomas J.(1992)。The Forgotten Americans。New York。  new window
20.Yu, Autumn C. S.(1993)。The Low Cost Budget。Budget Standards for the United Kingdom \\ Bradshaw, J. (ed.)。England。  new window
其他
1.內政部社會司(2001)。社會救助法。  延伸查詢new window
2.內政部社會司(2001)。九十年度低收入戶之類別及條件一覽表。  延伸查詢new window
3.何華欽，王德睦，呂朝賢(2002)。實驗性貧窮門檻對貧窮率之影響：預算標準之訂定與模擬。  延伸查詢new window
4.Betson, David(1996)。Is Everything Relative? The Role of Equivalence Scales in Poverty Measurement。  new window
5.Hallerod, Bjorn(1994)。A New Approach to the Direct Consensual Measurement of Poverty。  new window
圖書論文
1.Spicker, Paul(1999)。Definitions of Poverty: Eleven Clusters of Meaning。The International Glossary on Poverty。London：Zed Books。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：864（臺灣：853，外國：11） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1586744 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67403683
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上