Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.
This survey uses household disposable incomes, after adjusting for the household size and composition, as a proxy for material living standards. More precisely, it is a proxy for the level of consumption of goods and services that people could attain given the disposable income of the household in which they live.
Main Topics/Subject Category
Potential living standards in the United Kingdom as determined by disposable income
United Kingdom, age, care of dependants, child benefits, children, cost of living, costs, council tax, debts, disabled persons, economic activity, elderly, employment, ethnic groups, expenditure, families, free school meals, gender, home ownership, household budgets, household income, households, housing, housing finance, housing tenure, income, insurance, interest (finance), investment return, low pay, mortgages, one-parent families, pension benefits, rented accommodation, savings, school milk provision, self-employed, social housing, social security, social security, benefits, social security contributions, socio-economic indicators, spouse's age, spouses, television licences, wages, water rates
Identifier Variables
Economic/Subject Categories
Income, Earnings
Area of Health System
Data Available
Risk behaviours, Socio-economic, Demographic
Data collecting organization (s)
Department for Work and Pensions
Data Type
Survey (longitudinal)
Coverage (date of field work)
1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
Unit of Analysis
Respondents of the Family Resources Survey and British Household Panel Survey
ESDS Government, UK data archive
Conditions of Access
Free registration access
Jenkins SP. Recent trends in the UK income distribution: what happened and why? Oxford Review of Economic Policy 1996; 12(1): 29-46