育兒家庭最低可接受生活標準之初探

A Minimally Acceptable Standard of Living for Families with Children: A Preliminary Study

呂朝賢(Chao-Hsien Leu) ； 陳柯玫(Ke-Mei Chen) ； 陳琇惠(Hsiu-Hui Chen)

《臺大社會工作學刊》 31期 (2015/06) Pp. 105-164

https://doi.org/10.6171/ntuswr2015.31.03

摘要

臺灣的貧窮門檻通常以所得作為設算方法，未考慮是否符合社會慣常的生活標準。基於此，本研究以共識預算標準法，試擬一份育兒家庭的最低可接受生活預算，構建貼近其生活情境的貧窮門檻。焦點團體訪談與問卷調查為資料蒐集的方式，主要研究發現有四點：一、焦點團體成員對貧窮意涵的意見差異不大，且多以生活物項或事件來表述「貧窮與最低可接受的生活標準」；二、家庭必需品可依人口屬性與需要屬性做區分；三、法律所範定的基本保障－如健保及兒童營養午餐，皆是辨識最低生活標準是否達到的重要指標；四、焦點團體成員對最低生活預算的共識意見收歛度小於問卷結果，焦點團體與問卷之最低生活預算區帶，分別占「四口之家，平均消費支出一半」的67.27%、88.34%為下限，158.49%、106.65%為上限。這兩者結果的歧異顯示出共識預算標準法不能單以焦點團體來獲得共識，輔以問卷調查可改善焦點團體限制。

關鍵字

共識預算標準法 ； 育兒家庭 ； 貧窮門檻 ； 最低可接受生活標準 ； 焦點團體

並列摘要

In Taiwan, the calculation of the poverty threshold is usually based on income measurement that does not take account of the customary standard of living. Therefore, this study attempted to calculate minimum budgets for families with children using a consensual budget standards method in order to establish an adequate poverty threshold. The two data collection methods used to analyze the minimum budget standards were focus group and questionnaire survey. The results were as follows: (1) the group members had a common understanding of poverty and used daily items or events to define ＂poverty and a minimally acceptably standard of living.＂ (2) Daily necessities were categorized according to demographic characteristics and needs. (3) The basic protection provided by the government, such as National Health Insurance and School Lunch Program is an important indicator used to identify if families' minimum standards of living were met. (4) Group members did not easily reach a consensus on minimum budgets as compared with the questionnaire results. We calculated the bandwidths for minimum budgets, indicating that a minimum budget shared the proportion of ＂the 50% of average consumption expenditure for a four-person family.＂ The range in the consensus found in the focus groups is 67.27% to 158.49%. As for the results found in the questionnaire, the lower and upper limits are 88.34% and 106.65%, respectively.

並列關鍵字

consensual budget standards approach ； poverty threshold ； minimally acceptable standard of living ； families with children ； focus group

參考文獻

呂朝賢(2010)。臺灣兒童貧窮：輪廓與成因。臺灣社會福利學刊。9(1)，97-137。

王德睦、呂朝賢、何華欽(2003)。臺灣貧窮門檻與測量的建立：FCSU 的應用。臺大社會工作學刊。8，1-46。

洪明皇、鄭文輝(2009)。所得定義與均等值設定對經濟福利不均的測量影響。經濟研究。45(1)，11-63。

內政部兒童局（2014）。〈兒童權利公約〉。取自http://webarchive.ncl.edu.tw/archive/disk19/80/18/21/39/08/200806063008/20121218/web/cbi.gov.tw/CBI_2/internet/main/doc/doc_detailb76f.html?uid=11【Child Welfare Bureau, Ministry of the Interior. (2014). Convention on the rights of the child. Retrieved from http://webarchive.ncl.edu.tw/archive/disk19/80/18/21/39/08/200806063008/20121218/web/cbi.gov.tw/CBI_2/internet/main/doc/doc_detailb76f.html?uid=11】

行政院主計處（2011）。《99 年社會指標統計年報》。台北：作者。【Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics of Executive Yuan. (2011). Social indicators, 2010. Taipei, Taiwan: Author.】