Negotiating the minimum standards of living: the focused interview

Researchers using qualitative methods and techniques have sought to determine family budgetary requirements by bringing members of the public together for focused group interviews. Essential needs are presumed to be ‘socially perceived’, as Walker (Reference Walker1987) observes. Therefore, citizens should have the opportunity to listen to the views of others and to discuss their needs collectively with others. Early pioneering work conducted in New Zealand (Stephens et al., Reference Stephens, Waldegrave and Frater1995) and then in the UK (Middleton, Reference Middleton, Bradshaw and Sainsbury2000) identified some of the defining principles of the ‘consensual’ or ‘democratic’ approach to setting minimum living standards. As such, these studies offered a fresh departure from the centuries-old expert-driven inquiry into standards of adequacy (Deeming, Reference Deeming2010).

The ‘consensual’ approach to setting reference budget standards was recently refined in the UK (Bradshaw et al., Reference Bradshaw, Middleton, Davis, Oldfield, Smith, Cusworth and Williams2008). Relevant experts were now called upon to review the food and home-energy standards for instance, advising as and when they thought there was a case for amendment. Although the new methodology incorporated expert opinion, the standards were still very much grounded in public consensus. A final stage of the research process saw results validated against actual patterns of behaviour observed in the general population, as revealed by social surveys of household expenditure and consumption, for example. The methodological procedure is summarised in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Reference budget methodologies^a Note: ^a Sequential steps, the size of the circle however does not necessarily reflect the actual contribution to the final standard.

The composition of each focus group tends to represent the family or household unit under discussion. Groups typically involve pensioners, single-parent families, and those in two-parent families with children. This arrangement helps to ensure that specific household needs are considered. Conducting focus group research in different localities can help to ensure that results have national relevance. Essentials are usually priced at retail outlets agreed by the focus group members in order to produce a minimum socially acceptable standard of living. Similar and comparable research following this methodology has since been conducted in Finland (Lehtinen et al., Reference Lehtinen, Varjonen, Raijas and Aalto2011), Ireland (Collins et al., Reference Collins, Mac Mahon, Weld and Thornton2012) and Portugal (Pereirinha et al., Reference Pereirinha, Branco, Pereira, Costa, Amaro and Nunes2012), as well as Japan (Iwanaga and Iwata, Reference Iwanaga and Iwata2012). In the UK, reference budgets are now updated annually in order to monitor developments in British social policy (Hirsch, Reference Hirsch2013).

The ‘focused interview’, as a tool for social research, is associated with the pioneering work of Robert K. Merton (Merton and Kendall, Reference Merton and Kendall1946). Merton realised that research ‘data’ could be generated on any given topic through the interactions observed between group participants; participants represent their own views and experience, but they also hear from and respond to other people in the group. This method enables participants to listen and reflect; additional material is often triggered in response to what participants hear from other people in the group. Focus group research has grown in popularity over the years, and now offers many potential benefits (Krueger and Casey, Reference Krueger and Casey2009). Focus groups enable researchers to gain insights into people's shared understandings of everyday life, including the ways in which individuals are influenced by others in a group situation. They also provide critical insights into particular topics or areas of experience (Johnson, Reference Johnson1996). Focus group research is therefore regarded as an important tool for determining decisions on the essentials of life; the ‘data’ are reliably grounded in the context of community, and the basket of commodities, when priced, can inform the development of reference budgets that reflect socially acceptable minimum standards of living.

Progress in the ‘normative’ tradition: budgets derived from knowledge

Another strand of budget research attempts to apply or translate research findings and scientific knowledge, largely in relation to human needs for health and well-being, which can (within limits) be formulated into a basket of household commodities in order to determine reference budgets. Expert thinking guided much of the early work into family budget standards, as social researchers in Europe began to campaign for adequate wages to address human needs in the face of extreme hardship and poverty (Deeming, Reference Deeming2010). During the first half of the nineteenth century, medical experts began to apply ‘normative’ standards to evaluate the adequacy of working-class diets and family wages: ‘normative’ here simply means that the standards were set by the scientific ‘experts’ of the day. The new science of ‘dietics’ led the way. By the end of the twentieth century, however, such practices were growing more widespread among social investigators in Europe, who were attempting to incorporate social standards into their budgetary formulations.

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, many countries had established research programmes in the normative budget tradition. Researchers in the UK (Morris et al., Reference Morris, Deeming, Wilkinson and Dangour2010) and New Zealand (O'Sullivan and Ashton, Reference O'Sullivan and Ashton2012), for example, developed some of Benjamin Seebohm Rowntree's original thinking on reference budgets for ‘human health’ (Rowntree, Reference Rowntree1937). Today, international guidelines and recommendations by expert bodies are considered directional in deciding whether or not certain commodities should be included in any reference budget. Researchers in Belgium (for example, Storms, Reference Storms2000) turned to the influential scholarship on ‘human needs’, which argued that human needs are universal and not reducible to individual or collective preferences (Doyal and Gough, Reference Doyal and Gough1991; Maslow, Reference Maslow1954). Basic human needs, those things required to achieve the objective of physical and psychological health, such as nutritional food and water, a home and so on, have been well argued (Dean, Reference Dean2010). Notions of harm and loss, physical as well as psychosocial help to mark a distinction between essential human needs and wants. While researchers working in the normative tradition have clearly produced a vast array of reference budget standards over the years, the majority of those budgets and standards have been developed independently from each other, often with their own unique procedures and protocols for formulating standards. Arguably, the field has suffered from a general lack of collaboration. Until recently, there has been little or no coordinated attempt at setting cross-national reference budget standards for European societies.

This situation now appears to be changing as scholars strive for a common methodology with research teams throughout Europe (Storms et al., Reference Storms, Goedemé, Van den Bosch, Penne, Schuerman and Stockman2014). The ImPRovE project, which seeks to construct cross-nationally comparable reference budgets for Europe, is both ambitious and pioneering. The goal is to establish an agreed methodology for setting budget standards, along with common principles and agreed criteria for selecting commodities. So far, indicative reference budgets have been developed for Belgium, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Italy and Spain. The hope is that this programme of work might be rolled out in other European countries. If that occurs, comparable reference budgets might then be used to help and guide policymakers in their efforts to secure a common minimum standard of living across diverse European societies.

Researchers in the normative tradition usually follow sequential steps for defining reference budgets. First, the minimum standard of living is defined according to human needs, along with the commodities required to satisfy them. The commodity basket is then priced and tested for public acceptability. During the validation process, researchers typically compare or ‘triangulate’ their standards against the social norms and behavioural patterns found in surveys of household expenditure and/or by having them scrutinised by members of the public in focused group discussions (Morris and Deeming, Reference Morris and Deeming2004; Deeming, Reference Deeming2009; Storms et al., Reference Storms, Goedemé, Van den Bosch and Devuyst2013) (See Figure 1.)

Underpinning these normative standards are common and shared understandings about human needs, which themselves are not immune from variation according to the living standards of particular countries, as they include social participation and take account of factors such as self-esteem, which can be affected by the context of the norms and customs of a country, which in turn can evolve with changing living standards (Doyal and Gough, Reference Doyal and Gough1991). The claim being advanced is that, as human needs are generalisable, it is perfectly possible to construct minimum standards for need-satisfaction across Europe. Even if a level of variation remains about how human needs might be achieved in particular contexts, the robust framework and methodological principles observed should help to ensure that minimum living standards are at least comparable across nations.

Determining reference budgets using social survey statistics

Another established tradition examines the statistical evidence gathered from social surveys to construct indicative budget standards. Instrumental work in Britain during the 1980s and 1990s led the way (Bradshaw, Reference Bradshaw1993). Large-scale surveys of poverty and deprivation are of particular importance in determining minimum living standards. These surveys attempted to identify a general consensus on the items, services and behaviours which are required to meet social needs in modern societies. In this literature, the essential items are usually called ‘necessities of life’ (Pantazis et al., Reference Pantazis, Gordon, Townsend, Pantazis, Gordon and Levitas2006). A considerable amount of work has been undertaken in the UK using this methodology (for example, Parker, Reference Parker1998, Reference Parker2000), and also in Australia (for example, Saunders, Reference Saunders2004). With major new surveys of material deprivation being coordinated across Europe (Nolan and Whelan, Reference Nolan and Whelan2011), there is growing potential for budget researchers to capitalise on this work to determine cross-national budgets based upon socially perceived ‘necessities’ in national contexts, as Niemietz (Reference Niemietz2011) argues.

Survey techniques for measuring household deprivation were pioneered during the 1960s by Peter Townsend in the UK (Rosenfeld, Reference Rosenfeld2010, provides a review), although customary notions and cultural interpretations of social necessity are found much earlier, in the writings of Adam Smith (Reference Smith1776) for example.Footnote ² Today, modern social surveys use sophisticated random sampling techniques to ensure a reliable and accurate representation of the reference population. In order to try to minimise the impact of researcher bias, decisions about whether to include particular items in the household budget are usually based upon established conventions. These conventions usually concern prevailing patterns of consumption in society, observed in the survey data. Thus, basic minimum standards have tended to include all of the essential commodities owned by the majority of households. (Australian researchers, for instance, considered a 75 per cent cut-off criterion to define the majority; in the UK an 80 per cent ownership rate was observed). The basic living standard that is derived, it is claimed, allows social and economic participation consistent with collective community norms and standards. After items have been identified, they are assigned life-spans and are then priced at a range of outlets in order to calculate a household budget standard.

The ‘rules of thumb’ used for classifying particular items as essential, or social necessities, were developed by social scientists with the intention of making clear and consistent research judgments. Included in the UK and Australian reference budgets were provisions for universally recognised basic needs: nutritious food, a home, along with a budget to pay for home energy requirements. The budgets also included household appliances, refrigerators and freezers, and washing machines. Surveys showed ownership rates above 90 per cent. A microwave oven was included in the budget in Australia (with an ownership rate of 75 per cent), but not in the UK budget (where the ownership rate, at 70 per cent, was below the standard). Using a lower ownership rate evidently draws in more commodities and produces a higher, more affluent standard of living. A more generous Australian standard (based on a 50 per cent threshold) included the ubiquitous ‘Aussie’ barbeque, reflecting ownership rates of 54 per cent. A dishwasher exemplifies an item that does not qualify for inclusion in the minimum standard, as the ownership rate was only 36 per cent. Accordingly, these rules enhance the transparency of the underlying decision-making process and help to differentiate between and among different standards of adequacy.

Statistical methods can help researchers to understand social need and necessity, as they offer a reliable basis for determining minimum standards of living within society. Again, techniques and conventions try to minimise the impacts of researcher bias. Expert recommendations and guidance, particularly on diet and nutrition, are blended with the survey data to help finalise budgets for food. During a final validation stage involving focus groups, members of the public review the standards and reference budgets to ensure their acceptability. The key stages of the research process are set out in Figure 1.

Expert prescriptions and cultural conventions

Following the early pioneers, today's budget research conducted in the normative tradition appeals directly to our present-day understandings about universal ‘human needs’ and mechanisms for need-satisfaction (Doyal and Gough, Reference Doyal and Gough1991). Budget researchers are now able to capitalise on the knowledge produced by the global scientific research effort. However, ‘human needs’ theorising has a long (if not troubled) history in the literature (cf. Springborg, Reference Springborg1981). Critics often maintain that any conception of ‘real’ human need is, in fact, culturally and/or ideologically constructed. In general, this line of reasoning follows phenomenological arguments propounded by some social theorists, who reject the notion of objectivity in the social world (Dean, Reference Dean2010). Such arguments were used by politicians on the right to attack social welfare services and by libertarian political philosophers to justify the market allocation of population resources rather than state bureaucracy which, it is claimed, interferes with the pursuit of private ends (Bowpitt, Reference Bowpitt, Bradshaw and Sainsbury2000).Footnote ³ Today, however, politicians are more likely to be acutely aware of the limits to such market reasoning as Plant (Reference Plant2012) argues. Few liberals would argue against any form of state intervention to correct or compensate for disadvantageous outcomes in the free market capitalist system. Increasingly, we hear calls from across the political spectrum for more research into reference budgets to address questions of adequacy in the fight against poverty in Europe. The Institute of Economic Affairs (a free-market think-tank based in the UK), for example, argues that ‘poverty’ should correspond to the cost of adequate consumption, hereby defined by a basket of social necessities (Niemietz, Reference Niemietz2011). Any lack of resources below this publicly agreed minimum standard would therefore constitute or risk poverty.

The questions of how best to generate a social consensus on entitlements is, of course, the overriding concern of researchers determining reference budgets using focus group methodology. The limitations associated with focus group research are well known, bias being a particular problem (Morgan, Reference Morgan1997). As members of a group try to reach consensus, questions arise about the representativeness of the results. It is almost impossible for minority opinions to be conveyed in the outcome; one or two vociferous members with strong opinions can alter overall decisions. A skilled moderator with good facilitation skills is therefore required, along with a carefully chosen representative sample of participants. Further, the composition of the groups should, at least, attempt to reflect membership of the community (Deeming, Reference Deeming2011). For example, focus groups might include citizens from different social backgrounds in order to avoid potential social class bias in the research. Initial work by Stephens et al. (Reference Stephens, Waldegrave and Frater1995) and Waldegrave et al. (Reference Waldegrave, Stuart and Stephens1996) in New Zealand, as well as Storms (Reference Storms2000) in Belgium, saw reference budgets based upon focus group discussions with low-income families. Arguments about class and tastes are relevant (Bourdieu, Reference Bourdieu1984), consulting only those managing on low incomes may ‘bias’ the results and limit the scope of the budget. Unfortunately, such insights from social theory are often overlooked in the research literature on reference budgets. Given that the aim of the exercise is usually to determine a standard of living that would be generally acceptable to society, it is critical to include citizens that are representative of their community. In practice, this may be a challenge. Hence, a number of focus groups with a range of different people from different family and household circumstances, living in different geographical locations, are usually required to achieve cross-national locally agreed consensual standards.

A number of other issues and dilemmas remain. Some concerns relate to the rigour of the budget research itself. Generally, good practice in focus group research requires ‘data’ to be recorded and analysed thoroughly and independently by two or more researchers, to safeguard against potential researcher bias (Morgan, Reference Morgan1997; Ritchie and Lewis, Reference Ritchie and Lewis2003). In focus group-based budget strategies, however, this approach does not seem to be standard practice yet. Also, data collected from the focus groups are not being made available to the research community for secondary analysis. Ideally it should be, as data-archiving is now considered standard practice in large-scale qualitative research inquiries (Corti, Reference Corti, Becker and Bryman2005). Social research demands high ethical standards. Research findings require rigorous scrutiny, particularly if researchers demand that policymakers take their findings (more) seriously. Sadly, key methodological issues in focus group-based budget strategies often appear overlooked.

Despite these limitations, the focus group approach demonstrates great potential for establishing a consensual standard of social adequacy for society. In this model, members of the public, not ‘experts’ (politicians, academics, or researchers) determine what is ‘essential’ because the standards derived from focus group discussion reflect social norms ‒ the actual expenditure choices and judgements made in real life, by ordinary people, the real ‘experts’ managing their own personal or family budgets. In this sense, the resulting standards are more likely to be acceptable to society and, therefore, policy initiatives arising from them may stand a greater chance of public approval than budgets set by experts. Hence, the ‘democratic’ approach to social standards appeals to theories of deliberative democracy, as standards are based on public dialogue. From this perspective, active citizens are involved in the co-production of social policy as Iris Marion Young (Reference Young2002) argues.

There is also a strong rationale for referring to social statistics to help overcome material deprivation in national contexts as Whelan and Maître (Reference Whelan and Maître2009) argue. Society's increasing affluence, indicated by prevailing patterns of consumption in society and consensus on social necessity, is what attracts both support and criticism. This precise way of keeping pace with rising living standards has also led to criticisms about the ‘poor’ consumer in consumer society, as theorised by Zygmunt Bauman (Reference Bauman2010), for instance. Further methodological issues arise when thresholds are set by social scientists. Observed behavioural patterns of consumption and/or consensus on what are the essentials have been used to define different standards of living for reference budgets. Consumption patterns and/or public consensus relating to 50, 66, 75 and 80 per cent of the population are typical, but other thresholds may be used to determine the contents of the budget. The decisions here are largely normative, and reflect the dominant tradition of budget standards research that emerged in seventeenth century Europe. Bradshaw (Reference Bradshaw, Popay and Williams1994), for example, draws a distinction between ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ approaches to needs-based standards. The ‘top-down’ normative tradition involving experts has long attempted to define universal needs from a scientific or theoretical perspective. In the ‘bottom-up’ research tradition involving focus groups, needs are classified by members of the public. The large-scale survey approach falls somewhere in between. Here needs-based standards are grounded in observed social statistics, revealing expressed views and opinions about necessities, but needs-based thresholds are usually set by experts who decide where to draw the line in the survey results. The challenge for normative research remains to try to avoid inherent bias and abstraction from social context. Broadly defined lists of human entitlements chosen by theorists without any deliberative or democratic debate can be criticised for being overly deterministic and prescriptive, as Sen (Reference Sen2005) observes. Of course, this challenge applies as much to needs-based budget standards as it does to the more broadly conceived projects attempting to operationalise the necessities of life for poverty and deprivation measurement (Fahmy et al., Reference Fahmy, Sutton and Pemberton2015), and the capability approach to fundamental entitlements as a framework for the evaluation and assessment of individual well-being and social arrangements (Hick, Reference Hick2012).