Living standards determined by more than income
The Ministry of Social Development’s Centre for Social Research and Evaluation has released the first report from its 2004 survey on the living standards of New Zealanders.
Part of the Centre’s ongoing Living Standards research programme, New Zealand Living Standards 2004 shows that three in four New Zealanders report having a fairly comfortable to very good living standard.
The research looked at factors that contribute to both positive living standards and lower living standards. “Interestingly,” says Deputy Chief Executive of Social Development Policy and Knowledge, Marcel Lauzière, “people on benefit were found to have lower living standards than working people with comparable incomes. While income can certainly help improve our living standards, this research demonstrates the importance of sustained employment, as well as higher levels of education, home ownership and other assets.”
The range of factors that contribute to lower living standards include multiple marriage breakups, financial or employment shocks, and serious health issues. “While this is to be expected, what is particularly interesting is the cumulative effect found in the research,” says John Jensen, lead researcher on the project.
“These ‘life shocks’ tend to have little impact on living standards when they occur in isolation but multiple restrictions are capable of combining to substantially lower living standards. The research found that people with up to seven life shocks have a similar average living standard to those with no life shocks. Eight seems to be the tipping point.”
These issues will be explored further in a report due to be published in June 2007. This report will build on the preliminary explanatory work done for New Zealand Living Standards 2004 to produce a full analysis of variation in living standards.
The research team is also working on a report describing the living standards of Pacific people in New Zealand. The Centre for Social Research and Evaluation expects to publish the report in December 2006, along with a document detailing the methodology used.
