Identifying the Material and Non‐Material Ingredients of the Good Life

Datos Bibliográficos

ID11228343
AutoresPeter Saunders (0000-0003-1368-1696, autor de correspondencia)
Año2010
Volumen45
Número1
Páginas53-69
Fecha de publicación2010-09-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaAustralian Journal of Social Issues (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0157-6321 • E-ISSN: 1839-4655
EditorialWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1002/j.1839-4655.2010.tb00163.x
OpenAlexW2206233184
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas1
Referencias citadas14

Criticism of the neo‐liberal approach to generating economic growth and rising prosperity rests on the view that it has failed to deliver many of the things that people most value. Developments in the measurement of quality of life, and in the poverty literature, have moved away from relying solely on economic variables such as income. The deprivation approach provides an insight into the items that people value because it asks a random sample of the population whether or not a list of items are regarded as essential – things that no‐one should have to go without. Drawing on results from a recent deprivation survey, this paper examines the strength of Australian opinion about whether material and non‐material items are essential. The results confirm that there is widespread support for many non‐material items being essential and that lack of ownership of these items is often widespread, with adverse affects on wellbeing

Criticism · Economic growth · Economics · Political science · Population · Positive economics · Poverty · Project commissioning · Prosperity · Public economics · Public relations · Publishing · Sample (material · Social science · Sociology · Statistics · Value (mathematics · Income, Poverty, and Inequality · Law · Mathematics · Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction · Psychology · Social Issues and Policies · Social Psychology