Pobrezia energetikoa neurtzeko adierazleen errebisio kritiko bat

Resumen

[eus]

Lan honen helburua, literatura akademiko eta grisean pobrezia energetikoaren neurketarako proposatu diren adierazle esanguratsuenen errebisio kritiko bat egitea litzateke. Hau da, adierazle horien ezaugarri behinenak eta beren baitan leudekeen argi-ilunen azterketa izango luke oinari. Ariketa hau gauzatzeko, Schuessler (2014) egileak proposaturiko adierazleen sailkapena erabili da, hain zuzen, tipologiaren arabera, adierazleak lau talde handitan sailkatuz. Azterketa honek lau talde horiek ukitzen baditu ere, aipatu beharra dago analisiaren sakontasuna asimetrikoa izan dela talde batetik bestera. Zehazkiago esanda, Gastuan oinarritutako adierazleak batetik, eta populazioaren ebaluaketa kualitatibo eta subjetiboetan oinarritutako adierazleak bestetik, modu zabal eta sakonean landu dira, lan honen mamia eratzen dutela baieztatu liteelarik. Gainontzeko bi adierazle taldeak, hala nola, beste agenteek egindako ebaluaketa kualitatibo eta subjetiboetan oinarritutako adierazleak, eta, Gastuan oinarritzen ez diren adierazle objektiboak, oso azaletik landu dira. Lanaren izaera batik bat deskriptiboa bada ere, ondorioen atalean hainbat preskibapen egitera ausartzen da. Esanguratsuena, akaso, adierazle multidimentsionalen desiragarritasuna delarik.

[en]The aim of this paper is to carry out a thorough and critical review of the most prominent indicators for measuring energy poverty. The analysis, exclusively based on the examination of topic-related academic and grey literature, departs from the classification proposed by Schuessler (2014), where four different groups of indicators are distinguished. Even if the analysis touches upon every group, it has to be said that they have received an asymmetric treatment. Indeed, the indicators based on spending, on the one hand, and the indicators based on subjective and qualitative judgments of the population, on the other hand, have been discussed and analysed in depth, conforming therefore the gist of this paper. Conversely, the remaining two groups, namely, the indicators based on the subjective and qualitative judgements of other agents and the objective indicators that are not based on spending, have been treated shallowly. Although the paper is mainly descriptive, it does not refrain from making various prescriptions. Probably, the most meaningful conclusion of this paper would be the desirability of multidimensional indicators for measuring energy poverty