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

Dados Bibliográficos

ID11228343
AutoresPeter Saunders (0000-0003-1368-1696, autor correspondente)
Ano2010
Volume45
Fascículo1
Páginas53-69
Data de publicação2010-09-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoAustralian Journal of Social Issues (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0157-6321 • E-ISSN: 1839-4655
EditoraWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1002/j.1839-4655.2010.tb00163.x
OpenAlexW2206233184
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas1
Referências 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