Keyword search

Filter results by

Search Help
Currently selected filters that can be removed

Keyword(s)

Type

2 facets displayed. 0 facets selected.

Year of publication

1 facets displayed. 1 facets selected.

Geography

2 facets displayed. 0 facets selected.

Survey or statistical program

2 facets displayed. 0 facets selected.
Sort Help
entries

Results

All (27)

All (27) (0 to 10 of 27 results)

Data (24)

Data (24) (0 to 10 of 24 results)

Analysis (3)

Analysis (3) ((3 results))

  • Articles and reports: 75F0002M2008006
    Geography: Province or territory
    Description:

    Comparisons of low income between regions may have impacts on policy choices. However, it is often argued that rankings of distributions are not robust and that they are also quite sensitive to methods of defining low income. This paper avoids these problems by using a stochastic dominance approach to compare regional low income profiles in Canada without arbitrarily specifying a low-income line. This analysis is carried out for the 10 provinces using the Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics for 2000. Robustness of the results is also verified with respect to different choices of spatial price deflators and equivalence scales. The extent to which the findings are sensitive to the choice of an absolute or a relative concept of low income is also examined. We show that, in most cases, dominance relations can be determined and regional low income can be ordered for a wide range of low-income lines. We also show that dominance results are robust to the choice of equivalence scales, while rank reversal occurs when alternative cost-of-living deflators are used. Switching from an absolute to a relative low-income concept only affects low-income rankings for Ontario, Quebec and the Prairie provinces, but not in the case of other provinces. Nevertheless, for all scales, we find that low income is greatest in British Columbia.

    Release date: 2008-10-09

  • Articles and reports: 75-001-X200810513210
    Geography: Canada
    Description:

    There was almost no change in the proportion of children under age 18 living in a low-income family from 1989 to 2004, despite government interventions and a strong economy since the 1990/1992 recession. In addition, the disparity between well-off and low-income children increased, the economic situation of families of well-off children having improved. Family situation and parents, insufficient employment had the greatest influence on children's vulnerability to low income. It is a changing phenomenon, as few children remain in low income for several consecutive years.

    Release date: 2008-06-18

  • Articles and reports: 75F0002M2008004
    Description:

    Low income cut-offs (LICOs) are income thresholds, determined by analysing family expenditure data, below which families will devote a larger share of income to the necessities of food, shelter and clothing than the average family would. To reflect differences in the costs of necessities among different community and family sizes, LICOs are defined for five categories of community size and seven of family size.

    Low income Measures (LIMs), on the other hand, are strictly relative measures of low income, set at 50% of adjusted median family income. These measures are categorized according to the number of adults and children present in families, reflecting the economies of scale inherent in family size and composition. This publication incorporates a detailed description of the methods used to arrive at both measurements. It also explains how base years are defined and how LICOs are updated using the Consumer Price Index.

    Release date: 2008-06-04
Reference (0)

Reference (0) (0 results)

No content available at this time.

Date modified: