NSLLLNew Survey of London Life and Labour (living standards research; UK)
References in periodicals archive ?
While the intensity of poverty is doubled for the Rowntree/Linsley and the Beveridge poverty lines, it is increased by a factor of five for the NSLLL poverty line and by a factor of ten for the social security poverty line.
Even though its incidence was much more widespread than payments under the Poor Law had been in 1930, take up was still less than complete.(21) Furthermore, the unit of assessment was not the household as reflected in the NSLLL and in other interwar surveys but the individual and his or her immediate dependants.
The latter is more appropriate since it is based on working class budget weights.(23) We therefore multiply postwar benefits by 55% before applying them to the NSLLL households in 1929-31.
The proportion of households in poverty falls to 4.4% on the NSLLL net of rent poverty line and to 2.5% using the interwar social security benchmark.
First our evaluation of poverty in interwar London indicates that using the higher poverty lines which lay at the heart of the Beveridge Report, the numbers found to be in poverty is almost doubled as compared with the poverty line used in the NSLLL itself.
For the NSLLL scale including rent the minimum required number of rooms is based on the overcrowding scale R1 below.
Our adjustments to the NSLLL scale are based on the equivalence scales for food and clothing estimated by Prais and Houthakker (1955, p.141, 152).
d male 18+ 102 female 18+ 94 boy 14-17 91 girl 14-17 78 child 10-13 81 child 5-9 60 child 1-4 56 child [less than] 1 38 plus fuel (per household) 36 (add 2d for additional fuel costs in south London boroughs) For the NSLLL adjusted scale including rent the minimum number of rooms required is based on the overcrowding scale R1 below.
The NSLLL offered four different standards on which to measure the extent of overcrowding.
Implementing these four overcrowding standards on our data from the NSLLL gave the following results which are compared with those reported in Llewllyn-Smith (1930-5, Vol.
percentage of households overcrowded overcrowding standard R1 R2 R3 R4 our calculation 9.8 36.5 29.2 21.7 NSLLL 9 34 28 16 Our results differ slightly from those used in the NSLLL due probably to slight differences in the way the rules were implemented and in the number of households included.
In order to attach a value to minimum housing needs, we use rents reported in the NSLLL for dwellings according to the number of required rooms (as defined above):