178
H. Schlör et al.
single women, as well as in the case of mobility (11). For social participation (6), in
contrast, the spread is the same as that of the single women group. Striking is in the
case of the single man households that the spread of the education expenditures with
1.3 is the lowest across all households, as Table 10 shows. The average single man of
the highest income group spends only 4 e more for education than the average single
man in the lowest income group. The FEW-nexus justice spread of the single man is
a little bit lower for the nutrition functioning in comparison with the single woman.
The decent life spread is the same, whereas the mobility spread is higher for single
men. The external effects of the consumption patterns of the single man households
are more independent from the earned income. The effects are just 4 times higher
in the highest income group than in the lowest income group. The worldwide reach
differs only marginally between the households with rising income.
In the following, we will analyse the capability budget of single parent households.
Table 11 reveals some differences in the capability budget of the single parents
in comparison with the previous households. The spread of the health (16) and
mobility (6) functionings of the single parent households are lower than that of the
single households. This also applies to social participation and to some extent for
education. In the case of education for the two lowest income groups, no valid data
are available. The spread for the nutrition and decent life is as low as for the single
households, but the mobility spread is significantly lower. The mobility needs of
this group are similar, independent of the earned income. This also applies to the
external FEW-nexus related effects. The spread for the ecological footprint (3.4) and
for the water footprint (4.5), i.e. the worldwide reach, shows no significant differences
between the households according to their earned income.
Table 12 reveals the capability budget of the couple households without children, where the analysis reveals a more evenly distributed welfare foundation. The
justice spreads for all functionings are below 10, constituting the lowest spread of all
analysed households. The highest spreads are identified for both the welfare foundation and health expenditures (both 9). Nutrition (2) and education (2) are the most
evenly distributed functionings for the couples.
Similarly, also the FEW-nexus related expenditures of this household group are
below 10. The highest FEW-nexus spread is identified for the mobility functionings
(7). The external FEW-nexus related effects show a spread of 3 for the ecological
footprint and of 4.2 for the water footprint. Hence, the external effects are not so
much influenced by the level of the household income.
In a next step, Table 13 shows the capability budget of couples with children.
On average, for these households the expenditures for the functionings are also
more evenly distributed. Only the health expenditures differ significantly between
the highest and the lowest income group. The justice spread is 12.
For all other functionings, the justice spreads are below 10 and, again, nutrition
is the most evenly distributed functioning (2), followed by the ecological footprint
spread (2.7) and the water footprint spread (3.8). Also, the other FEW-nexus related
functionings show a relatively low spread between the highest and lowest income
group. Hence, these social groups have more similar household needs, which are
more independent from the earned income as in other social groups.
H. Schlör et al.
single women, as well as in the case of mobility (11). For social participation (6), in
contrast, the spread is the same as that of the single women group. Striking is in the
case of the single man households that the spread of the education expenditures with
1.3 is the lowest across all households, as Table 10 shows. The average single man of
the highest income group spends only 4 e more for education than the average single
man in the lowest income group. The FEW-nexus justice spread of the single man is
a little bit lower for the nutrition functioning in comparison with the single woman.
The decent life spread is the same, whereas the mobility spread is higher for single
men. The external effects of the consumption patterns of the single man households
are more independent from the earned income. The effects are just 4 times higher
in the highest income group than in the lowest income group. The worldwide reach
differs only marginally between the households with rising income.
In the following, we will analyse the capability budget of single parent households.
Table 11 reveals some differences in the capability budget of the single parents
in comparison with the previous households. The spread of the health (16) and
mobility (6) functionings of the single parent households are lower than that of the
single households. This also applies to social participation and to some extent for
education. In the case of education for the two lowest income groups, no valid data
are available. The spread for the nutrition and decent life is as low as for the single
households, but the mobility spread is significantly lower. The mobility needs of
this group are similar, independent of the earned income. This also applies to the
external FEW-nexus related effects. The spread for the ecological footprint (3.4) and
for the water footprint (4.5), i.e. the worldwide reach, shows no significant differences
between the households according to their earned income.
Table 12 reveals the capability budget of the couple households without children, where the analysis reveals a more evenly distributed welfare foundation. The
justice spreads for all functionings are below 10, constituting the lowest spread of all
analysed households. The highest spreads are identified for both the welfare foundation and health expenditures (both 9). Nutrition (2) and education (2) are the most
evenly distributed functionings for the couples.
Similarly, also the FEW-nexus related expenditures of this household group are
below 10. The highest FEW-nexus spread is identified for the mobility functionings
(7). The external FEW-nexus related effects show a spread of 3 for the ecological
footprint and of 4.2 for the water footprint. Hence, the external effects are not so
much influenced by the level of the household income.
In a next step, Table 13 shows the capability budget of couples with children.
On average, for these households the expenditures for the functionings are also
more evenly distributed. Only the health expenditures differ significantly between
the highest and the lowest income group. The justice spread is 12.
For all other functionings, the justice spreads are below 10 and, again, nutrition
is the most evenly distributed functioning (2), followed by the ecological footprint
spread (2.7) and the water footprint spread (3.8). Also, the other FEW-nexus related
functionings show a relatively low spread between the highest and lowest income
group. Hence, these social groups have more similar household needs, which are
more independent from the earned income as in other social groups.