个人陈述代写

美国代写:社会排斥与贫困

美国代写:社会排斥与贫困。根据相关数据定义了伦敦的社会排斥和贫困。虽然它们有时可以互换使用,但在理解社会排斥和贫穷如何相互联系方面缺乏一致性。如果没有一个适当的定义,就不可能衡量社会排斥和贫困是如何在该国的交通问题中出现的,以及它与社会贫困的关系。因此,在本研究中,区分社会排斥的定义对于理解贫困与该国交通的关系变得很重要。接下来美国代写对社会排斥与贫困进行以下分析与讨论。

贫穷被理解为绝对或相对地获得物质福利。另一方面,社会排斥是在更广阔的视野下定义的,即一些社会群体无法以适当的方式获得政府提供的设施。被社会排斥的个人通常很贫穷,但实际上可能失去改善自己的机会,因为他们被剥夺了充分参与社会的权利。个人没有选择来改进Burchardt等人(1999,p. 227)。社会排斥定义指出:“英国人被社会排斥的条件是:(a)他/她在地理上是英国居民,但(b)由于他/她无法控制的原因,他/她不能参加英国公民的正常活动;(c)他/她愿意参与。”解决社会排斥问题意味着必须将个人纳入决策层面。因此,在处理与交通系统有关的社会排斥问题时,需要进行公众咨询(Atkinson和Hills, 1998)。

伦敦研究中心(1996)提出了社会排斥和贫困的措施。据估计,大约有170万到220万伦敦人生活在贫困之中。这里使用了物质福利措施。贫困和流动性之间的联系可以通过物质福利衡量来理解(Howarth et al., 1998)。然而,物质福利的论点并不那么有力,因为三个主要原因。物质富裕与流动的关系在社会理论中是无法理解的。社会关系非常复杂,更多的是一种货币目标。旅行支出、贫穷和旅行费用并不是真正明确衡量现实社会排斥的指标,但基于所处的地点,这些因素会产生很大的影响。取决于人们住在哪里,无论是在伦敦市中心还是郊区,旅行的费用会有所不同。使用物质福利衡量的第二个限制是,它将取决于年龄等变量。这些变量创造了关于人们如何以及为什么消费的不同层面的推理。与老年人相比,即使在有限的社会水平内,年轻人也表现出更大的消费倾向,老年人对消费活动的理解与年轻一代大不相同。这些变量与缺乏机会有不同的联系(环境、运输和区域部,1998年b)。最后,提出的物质福利问题可能会让在国内旅行的人感到困惑。例如,生活在贫困线以下的人可能没有汽车,但生活在伦敦一些较富裕地区的人可能没有汽车,因为停车位稀缺(Focas, 1998)。

虽然这些都是物质关切成为衡量一个复杂方面的原因,但社会排斥也是如此。社会排斥的衡量依赖于多种指标,而对剥夺的评估必须基于正确的指标。例如,英国环境和运输部将社会排斥定义为一种社会经济压力,在这种情况下,公共交通供应不足会对公民造成影响。它基于公民参与机会较少的论点(环境、交通和地区部,2000)。重要的是要记住,这些指标并不代表个人由于某些其他原因而无法使用某项规定的情况。它只适用于那些规定甚至没有提供给公民,公民没有选择接受或拒绝这些规定的情况。Folwell(1999)认为在这种对社会排斥的理解中可能存在复合元素,“这些特征彼此之间没有任何关系”(Folwell, 1999, p. 27)。因此,复杂性的水平得到了强调。一些变量是相互排斥的,如高老年群体的住房的地理分布。

联合王国政府旨在以明确的方式提出其关于社会排斥的立场,以便具有一致性(社会排斥股,1998年)。例如,政府为其人口普查分析确定了关键枚举地区级别。这种分类包括社会包容方面。这种计划揭示了以下几点。报告强调指出,伦敦大部分人口处于贫困状态,在某些情况下,贫困与社会排斥是有联系的。将贫穷与排斥联系起来的第二个结论可能没有得到正确的理解。第三,内在的复杂性是一个问题。第四,维度之间的相互关系是一个问题。新的剥夺指标指数似乎解决了其中一些问题。然而,并不是所有的都被最终确定或批准(卫报,2000年)。因此,研究-政策差距也存在,增加了理解社会排斥和流动性的复杂性。

Poverty is understood absolute or relative access to material welfare. On the other hand, social exclusion is defined in a broader horizon where some social groups do not have access to facilities provided by the government in proper way. The socially excluded individual are generally poor but could have actually lost the opportunities to improve themselves because they were denied the rights to fully participate in society. Individuals just do not have a choice to improve Burchardt et al. (1999, p. 227). The social exclusion definition states that “a British individual is socially excluded if: (a) he/she is geographically resident in the UK but (b) for reasons beyond his or her control, he/she cannot participate in the normal activities of UK citizens; and (c) he/she would like to so participate”. Addressing the social exclusion problem means the individual must be brought into the policy making dimensions. Public consultation is hence needed when tackling social exclusion in relation to the transportation system in the country (Atkinson and Hills, 1998).

London Research Centre (1996) presented the measures of social exclusion and poverty. Around 1.7 and 2.2 million Londoners were estimated to be living in poverty. Material welfare measures were used here. Link between poverty and mobility can be understood with the material welfare measure (Howarth et al., 1998). However, the material welfare argument is not that strong because of three main reasons. The material affluence & mobility relationship are not understood in a social theory. The social relationship is very complex and more of a monetary objective. Expenditure on travel, poverty and cost of travel are not really clear measures of social exclusion in reality but based on the location these factors make lot of difference. Depending on where the person lives, either in central London or in the sub urban areas, the cost of travel would differ. The second limitation in using the material welfare measure is that it would depend on variables like age. These variables create different layers of reasoning on how and why people spend. Young people shows a greater spending propensity even within constrained social levels, as compared to older people, whose understanding of spending activities will be much different than younger generation. These variables have a different connection to the absence of opportunity (Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, 1998b). Finally, the material welfare concerns raised could be confusing for the travel people in the country. For instance, people who are under poverty line might not own a car, but people who are in some of the wealthier parts of London might not own a car because parking would be scarce (Focas, 1998).

While these are reasons why material concerns become a complex aspect to measure, the same could be said for social exclusion. Social exclusion measurement relies on multiple indicators and the deprivation has to be assessed based on the right indicator. For instance, United Kingdom defines social exclusion in the Department of Environment and Transport as a form of social economic stress where lack of public transport provisions is caused to the citizen. It is based on the argument that there are less participation opportunities for the citizen (Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, 2000). It is important to remember that such indicators do not represent case situations where the person is not able to make use of a provision because of some other reasons. It only applies to such cases where the provisions are not even made available to the citizen, and the citizen does not have a choice to accept or reject the provisions. Folwell (1999) argues that composite elements might exist in such understanding of social exclusions and “none of these characteristics have anything to do with one another” (Folwell, 1999, p. 27). The level of complexity is hence highlighted. Some variables are mutually exclusive as seen in the geographical distribution of housing among high old age groups.

The United Kingdom Government aims to present their stand point on social exclusion in a clear manner so as to have consistency (Social Exclusion Unit, 1998). The Government for instance identified key enumeration district levels for its census analysis. Social inclusion aspects are included in such categorization. Such planning revealed the following. It highlighted that much of the population of London was under poverty and in some cases poverty and social exclusion are connected. The second conclusion in the link connecting poverty and exclusion may not be properly understood. Thirdly, inherent complexity is a concern. Fourthly, inter-relationship between dimensions is a concern. Newer index of deprivation indicators seems to address some of these concerns. However, not all of them were finalized or cleared (Guardian, 2000). Hence, a research-policy gap exists as well adding to more complexity in understanding social exclusion and mobility.

以上内容就是美国代写专家对社会排斥与贫困的分析与讨论。若要问论文代写哪家更专业可靠?论文代写推荐选择美国论文代写AdvancedThesis服务平台。因为其服务公司拥有专业资质的英语论文写手团队,保障论文原创质量与合理的论文代写价格,并使用权威的抄袭检测系统,让留学生们轻松应对英语论文写作并创作出专属个人的优秀论文!除此之外,还为留学生提供专业的硕士论文代写、毕业论文代写、essay代写等服务!