My views on this are very biased as times were very different in the early 20th century to nowadays, but to me it seems unfair that the absolute poverty line that was set still left people having to scrimp and save to acquire basic items which were essential. After a welfare scheme was put into place to assist those who needed help with finances, to stop people falling below the poverty line, poverty in 1936 was recorded that 18% of the UK population was still in poverty, thus indicating that the welfare state that had been introduced was starting to work, by improving people living standards and quality of life. A 3rd study was also done by Rowntree in 1950’s this indicated that 1 1/2 % was still in poverty, this was a great improvement on the first poverty study that was done in 1880. With all this improvement to living standards Rowntree still argued that people was sometimes victims to the poverty cycle, this meaning that the majority of people was born into poverty, and making it out of poverty until they reached the working age, this in Rowntree’s time was age 12, however once they had children of their own this plummeted them back below the poverty line, as more mouths to feed and clothe left people with very limited finances. Once their children reached the age of 12 and could go out to work themselves this put people back above the poverty line, but it is sad to say that once people became old age pensioners they once again found themselves under the poverty line, struggling to survive on the basic benefits which was entitled to them. This indicating that the most beneficial years of people lives for having sufficient finances to survive was when they were in their early 20’s, or just before they embarked on starting their own family.
Even to the present day you can make criticisms of this method, just because many people seem to be just above the poverty line, when they have problems, for example like their car breaking and being costly to fix this sends them back below the poverty line, because they just don’t have the finances as back up to deal with a problem, on paper they are showing that they are not poor, but in realistic terms they are, this is where the new method of defining poverty ‘Relative’ comes into play also by the 1960’s peoples needs changed, this making the absolute poverty scale redundant, as times changed and peoples needs became greater.
Relative poverty defines poverty in a completely different way that absolute poverty does, Peter Townsend developed it with an enlightened view. It allows more social needs, it recognises that people have needs to be met, whether that be going out for a night out with friends or having a television. Relative poverty studies, define poverty in terms of where people stand relative to others in the same country. If people fall below the standard of living that is norm for their country, then they are considered to be poor. Britain is considered to be an affluent country, thus making peoples needs for more materialistic items greater compared to those in a 3rd world country. Sociologists and people see relative poverty as having a more generous measure of poverty, but this study still sees that we need to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor in order to tackle poverty.
Townsend’s views were very interesting, however he had a lot of critics. His ‘deprivation index’ that assessed whether or not people were in poverty, had many questions, which people saw as unimportant to be a factor to consider poverty. Take ‘Has not had a cooked breakfast most days of the week’ for example, this confused people whether it was customary for the UK population to have a cooked breakfast, even in Townsend’s own findings over two thirds of the population do not have a cooked breakfast most days of the week, in my own opinion and those in my peer group, this is a very unimportance factor of poverty, people just don’t want a cooked breakfast most days and people don’t have the time in their busy lifestyles to cook a breakfast most days of the week. So why did he select these 12 items? He offered no explanation for choices, and he seemed to blur the distinction between them being a choice or not being able to have them due to lack of finances. His ‘deprivation index’ concluded that 25% of the population were in poverty; his study was completed in 1979.
Mack and Lansley were inspired by Townsend’s work. They took upon themselves to conduct the ‘breadline Britain’ survey, which was based on consensual definition of poverty, they surveyed just under 1200 people, and the data was gathered on their lifestyles, incomes and possessions. The interviewees were asked 35 questions and asked whether or not they considered them to be a necessity. This helped to distinguish a ‘consensus’ view of what the public saw as importance in society. This helped Mack and Lansley see whether people were lacking due to financial constraints rather than tastes, they stated that if people were lacking of 3 or more items that they saw as a necessity than they were considered to be in poverty. They concluded that 14% of the population were in poverty in 1983 and in 1990 21% were in poverty. The latest study to be done using relative as an ideology, was done by David Gordon in 1999 he concluded that 24% of the population were in poverty.
Another study that is used by many to determine how much of the population is in poverty is called ‘Households below average income’; these figures are taken after housing costs have been deducted from a household’s income. The median figure used is 60%. The percentages of people in poverty using these studies are as follows:
By looking at these figures that are commonly used by the government, we can quickly see two trends, the first being that in 1995/96 the percentage of people in poverty reaches a peak of 25% and 14.2 million people. The 2nd trend being that after this peak poverty starts to decrease. There is many criticisms of this method one of which being why do we use 60% of the median income, why not use 50%? Another one being that recession can force the median income down, so the poverty line goes down this makes poverty look that it has decreased but in fact it has increased dramatically.
So why does poverty seem to be growing, surely in this day and age poverty should have been eradicated, it is sad to see that so many of the population are considered to be in poverty, but is this happening because we are getting greedy? We all want more and more materialistic possessions, to keep up with peers and the growing trends of the nation, what we define as poverty is completely different to those say in an African tribe. So is poverty growing? I argue that it is not, my view on this is that we all want materialistic possessions that are not really essential to our everyday life, but to many of us these items are out of reach, so we escape into the relative poverty measures to define ourselves. However I feel that poverty does act as a social inequality for many. There is a whole nation of affluent people who can pay for private medical treatment, but if someone in poverty needs an operation they must wait patiently for the NHS to be able to fit them in, the cause for the operation may be causing pain leaving the person unable to work to drag them selves back out of poverty, whereas the affluent person could afford to pay a private hospital to carry out the operation thus resulting that they are able to get back to work quicker and do not occur great losses of earnings whilst waiting on a waiting list. Although I have criticised the measures of relative poverty, I feel that in are changing nation we need these measures to stop people at the bottom from being socially excluded. Yes poverty does still exist and politicians need to be aware of this and not allow people to fall into the poverty trap.