Article Fingerprint
ReserarchID
F1SF1
Crossref Journal DOI 10.17406/GJHSS
Print ISSN 0975-587X
e-ISSN 2249-460X
Explore published articles in an immersive Augmented Reality environment. Our platform converts research papers into interactive 3D books, allowing readers to view and interact with content using AR and VR compatible devices.
Your published article is automatically converted into a realistic 3D book. Flip through pages and read research papers in a more engaging and interactive format.
This paper attempted to assess the attitudes of students in
Advances in technology have created the potential for a new
Inclusion has become a priority on the global educational agenda,
Summery-The poverty penalty is the price that the poor pay more than the rich to obtain the same or similar goods. To be consistent with the way this concept is presented in the author who originally deals with it (Caplovitz) and in the author who originally calls it (Prahalad), the understanding of means “similar” concerns a quality standard imposed on the consumer as a condition of its functioning in society. The sociological relationships that determine this pattern, shape, through the institutions participating in the market, the economic ecosystem (so called by Prahalad). In view of this, the fight against that penalty is of questionable success in the absence of interventions to treat the sociological bases from which it is generated, which, in turn, implies that the measurements that lend themselves to identifying the penalty of poverty, need to include the effects of those sociological determinants, in the absence of which, they are useful as an exploratory data analysis, which only suggests the existence of the poverty penalty but does not actually verify it. In order to be consistent with the pioneering authors in the treatment of the penalization of poverty, the concept needs to be understood in the context of markets, or market-based. In this sense, related concepts are presented in the literature, such as “catastrophic expenses”, “out-ofpocket” expenses, “uncompensated expenses”, “consumer detriment” and “double jeopardy”. Taken together as market-based, these concepts point to two different ways of interpreting the penalization of poverty.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.
