Deprivation, policy and rurality: The limitations and applications of area-based deprivation indices in Scotland
Deprivation, policy and rurality: The limitations and applications of area-based deprivation indices in Scotland
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/0269094219827893
复制
发表时间：
2019-02-01
期刊：
影响因子：
1.6
通讯作者：
Hill, Carol
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Clelland, David;Hill, Carol
多重剥夺指数作为确定和瞄准被剥夺地区和人口的一种手段，已变得日益复杂和引人注目。然而，这些措施在概念上和实践上都受到了一些理由的挑战，特别令人关切的是它们是否适用于农村地区。与此同时，关于这些措施在实践中如何使用或它们如何影响政策或资源分配的研究很少。本文试图根据苏格兰多重剥夺指数的结果，从目标地区隐含的纳入或排除贫困人口的角度来量化这类措施的有效性。结果显示，在这些明显最贫困的地区，贫困个人的比例在不同地区差别很大。然而，这与乡村关系不大，这表明应谨慎对待因使用这些措施而对农村地区产生固有偏见的说法。然而，这一分析显示了不加批判地依赖多重剥夺指数作为政策基础的潜在缺点，并突出表明需要更清楚地阐明这种办法的目标和理由。
Indices of multiple deprivation have become increasingly sophisticated and high profile as a means of identifying and targeting deprived areas and populations. However, these have been challenged on a number of grounds, both conceptual and practical, with particular concerns about their applicability to rural areas. At the same time, there is little research on how such measures are used in practice or how they influence policies or the allocation of resources. This paper seeks to quantify the effectiveness of this type of measure in terms of inclusion or exclusion of deprived populations implied by targeting areas based on the results of the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation. The results show that the proportion of deprived individuals within these apparently most deprived areas varies widely across different regions. However, this was not strongly related to rurality, suggesting that claims of an inherent bias against rural regions resulting from the use of these measures should be treated with caution. Nevertheless, this analysis demonstrates potential drawbacks to the uncritical reliance on indices of multiple deprivation as a basis for policy and highlights the need for the aims and rationales of such approaches to be more clearly articulated.