David Marsland (1989) argues that the state welfare provision should be kept to a minimum and provided on a selective basis as a last resort. Marsland believes that the welfare has undermined other welfare agencies, for example the family, local communities and voluntary organisations, agencies which allow the poor to help themselves and each other.
Some New Right thinkers, such as Charles Murray (1990) in the USA and Digby Anderson (1990) in the UK, have argued that a new underclass is emerging – social class below the working class which is dependent on the welfare state. According to Murray it is characterized by family instability, violent crime, drug abuse, dropping out of education and the labour market and irresponsible ‘scrounging’ off welfare benefits. Murray claims that what distinguishes members of the underclass is their refusal to take responsibility for their own welfare, for example by failing to seriously look for work when they are unemployed. And state benefits are again seen as causing social problems. They support the underclass and create a culture of dependency which saps people’s initiative.
Criticisms Dependency theory has been strongly criticised by social democratic thinkers who support the philosophy of the welfare state. Labour MP, Frank Field (1989) sees the poor as an underclass but argues that it is not the welfare state but lack of resources that prevents them from participating fully in society. Reducing support from the welfare state simply create other forms of dependency on agencies such as the family, friends and private charities which may be ill equipped to help those in poverty. Social democratic thinkers reject the argument that dependency is created by the welfare state. They believe that the state has a duty to enable vulnerable and dependent groups to participate in society on equal terms with other citizens.
The culture of poverty: Culture as the cause of poverty:
New Right theories see the underclass as characterised by a way of life and attitudes which create dependency and so prevent the poor from escaping and so prevent the poor from escaping from poverty. This idea of a culture of poverty has its origins in the work of the American anthropologist Oscar Lewis who studied poor communities in Mexico and Puerto Rico in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Lewis (1968) argued that in Third World societies the poor have a distinctive culture with attitudes, norms and values which duffer from those of the mainstream culture. This culture of poverty includes attitudes of resignation and fatalism which lead the poor to accept their fate then attempting to improve their lot. This can be seen as their failure.
The culture of poverty emphasises immediate gratification and a concern with the present. This makes it difficult for poor people to plan or save for the future, join trade unions, political organisations and community groups which might help them to improve their situation.
Lewis saw the culture of poverty as a way of life which is passed on from generation to generation. Children learn the culture from an early age. It helps them to cope with day to day life in poverty, but means they are ill- equipped to take advantage of opportunities such as education which might help them to escape from poverty. In this way the poverty of the parents is passed on to children.
Ken Coates and Richard Silburn showed in their study of St.Ann’s in Nottingham that poverty resulted from a series of multiple deprivations. Not only did poor people suffer from low incomes, they were also lively to live in seriously substandard housing, they often had poor diets, their children went to a primary school which lacked modern amenities and they lived in an area which could be best described as a slum.
Coates and Silburn argue that in such circumstances it was difficult for people to escape from poverty. They needed all their energy and what little money they had just to survive. And faced with similar situational constraints, children were likely to experience the same poverty as their parents.
The argument that poverty is created by situational constraints and perpetuated by cycles of disadvantages has been criticised for providing only a partial explanation. Many sociologists argue that to answer such questions we must turn to theories of social stratification. From this viewpoint, poverty is an aspect of gender, class and ethnic stratification.
Many of those who support social democratic theories see the existence of poverty as a part of the inequality created by the labour market in capitalist economic systems. They point out that most of the groups in poverty are either excluded from the labour market – for example unemployed people, people over retirement age and people unable to work because of sickness or disability – or they are in a weak position in the labour market and thus tend to restricted to low paid, often casual and insecure work – for example, workers with few skills and those black people and people with disabilities.
Peter Townsend argues that poverty is closely related to class. The majority of the poor occupy (or have occupied) unskilled or semi-skilled jobs. In his more recent studies, he point to the large numbers of black people and women who suffer from poverty because of the disadvantage they face in the labour market.
Marxists argue that poverty in capitalist society can only be understood in terms of economic system. Money is the main motivation for work. Unequal monetary rewards motivate workers to compete for higher wages. And capitalism requires highly motivated workers.
Marxists argue that to focus on the poor can divert attention from the real cause of poverty – the social inequality generated by the capitalist system. It follows that any solution to poverty must involve the abolition of capitalism. Critics of Marxists argue that it fails to explain why some groups are prone to poverty than others, for example the particular vulnerability of women and black people.
Moreover, writers like Townsend point out that the state can influence the operation of the labour market, often in opposition to capitalist interests. E.g. Employment protection legislation provides workers with protection against unfair dismissal and the equal opportunities Commission attempts to ensure equal pay for women.
