Skip Navigation


Cambridge Journal of Economics Advance Access originally published online on September 25, 2007
Cambridge Journal of Economics 2007 31(6):995-1006; doi:10.1093/cje/bem024
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
31/6/995    most recent
bem024v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Angeriz, A.
Right arrow Articles by Chakravarty, S. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Related Collections
Right arrow I32 - Measurement and Analysis of Poverty
Right arrow R23 - Regional Migration; Regional Labor Markets; Population
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Cambridge Political Economy Society. All rights reserved.

Changing patterns of UK poverty, 1997–2004

A. Angeriz and S. P. Chakravarty*

* Cambridge Centre for Economic and Public Policy, University of Cambridge; and WELMERC, Swansea University and the Business School, University of Wales at Bangor, respectively

Address for correspondence: S. P. Chakravarty WELMERC and The Business School, University of Wales, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2DG, UK; email: s.p.chakravarty{at}bangor.ac.uk

It has been noted that the failure to meet the target set by the government for reducing the head count ratio of child poverty in Britain is partly due to the success of government policy in generating economic growth. Apart from ignoring the argument that absolute poverty is not a meaningful idea, this apology for the failure of government to meet poverty targets also misses wider problems embedded in recent trends in the household income distribution. For example, inequality measures sensitive to the distribution of income amongst the poor suggest that the experience of those who remained poor may have worsened.

Key Words: Poverty trends • Poverty indices • TIP curves • FGT index

JEL classifications: D31, I32, I38

Manuscript received December 19, 2005; final version received April 30, 2007.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Cambridge J EconHome page
M. Kitson and F. Wilkinson
The economics of New Labour: policy and performance
Camb. J. Econ., November 1, 2007; 31(6): 805 - 816.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.