We were than asked ‘Why is poverty a controversial issue? We had brainstorming exercise as a class, and individuals gave their ideas. The purpose of this was to find out other individual thoughts on the issue, so we see it from different perspectives. We all had different attitudes and thoughts on the subject. The issues raised were:
- No actual definition/description of poverty
- The causes of poverty
- Different groups that suffer from poverty
- What the government has done or not done about?
- What help there is?
- Appreciation of the real problems that the poor face
- Prioritising needs and types of help available
- Pressures on governments and voluntary groups
- Why the poor still remain poor?
Britain has not got an official government definition of poverty as well as a measurement of it. There is no official poverty line that divides the people in poverty and the ones who are not. Sociologists have used government statistics to show the extent of poverty. A way of defining the poverty line is to use minimum government social security benefit levels. Using this measure, all the people living on or below the state safety net of current benefit rates. Another way of measuring poverty is based on statistics on households below average income. With this measure the people in poverty are when they live in a household that has an income below half of the average wages. This is worked out at 50 per cent of average income after housing costs have been paid. In figure 3, I have shown the percentage of people living below 50 per cent of average income in 1998/89.
Figure 4:
Source: Poverty the Facts (Carey Oppenheim)
Some of the explanations of what causes poverty are the poverty trap, culture of poverty and the cycle of deprivation. The cycle of deprivation is one aspect of poverty that can lead to further poverty. This is a vicious circle which most people find hard to escape from, it is when poverty ‘breeds’ from one generation to the next. People suggest that this explanation may describe how deprivation continues over time from one generation to the next but it fails to explain why some groups fall into poverty in the first place.
The poverty trap (shown in figure 6) is when someone has fallen into poverty and it is very difficult for them to escape from it. Although some people are born into poverty and never escape from it, others fall in to poverty and remain poor. Others experience periods of poverty, which may happen when going through temporary unemployment, child-rearing as a single parent or at old age.
Figure 6: (The Poverty Trap)
Deprivation Lack of Leisure
Negative effects of children Stigma and lack of status
Poor housing authorities Neighbourhood
Stress Depth Ill health Extra Costs
The culture of poverty is one explanation for the persistence of poverty among some groups. This theory suggests that it is the characteristics of the poor themselves, their values and their culture that causes poverty. It is suggested the poor themselves are resigned to their situation, that they are hardly ever take opportunities when they arise, are reluctant to work, and don’t plan for the future. Children grow up in this culture, and learn these values from their parents, and so poverty continues from one generation to the next.
In development of the relative approach, Mac and Lansely (1985) adopted an innovative approach to poverty which has been described as a consensual or democratic. They defined being in poverty as a situation in which people had to live without the things which society as a whole regard necessities. In 1985, Mac and Lansely did a survey called ‘Breadline Britain’, they surveyed over a thousand people and asked them what they thought were the main necessities in life, they measured poverty in terms of minimum living standards rather the income. Figure 4 shows the top ten necessities presented in Mac and Lansely’s survey, the percentage of how much the public the necessity is needed.
Figure 4:
This list of necessities gave us an indication of what people regarded as being the most important necessities in life in 1985. This survey was redone in1991 to see if the public’s attitudes had changed, as the old survey was out of date. Mac and Lansely found that one in five of the population lacked three of these necessities or more, which they defined living in poverty. In Figure 5, I have shown what we as a group thinks the main necessities for life are.
Figure 5:
Mac and Lansely surveyed adults, our group which were surveyed were teenagers. By looking at both tables of results, I can see what the public regards as the most important things in life, which we as a group find we can live without. For example, we find we can live without a garden, presents on special occasions and a holiday once a year. Where as the public thoughts were that a refrigerator, toys for the children and a self contained accommodation is most needed in life. Between the two sets of results, there are many similarities. Both age groups think that a heated damp free house with an indoor toilet and bath are some of the main necessities in life. I think they both have similar opinions on these necessities because it is the biggest necessity for everyone. The differences between the two results I see are that the group results show that they don’t think a holiday once a year, a night out for the adults or smoking are important necessities, whereas the adults think that there are quite important. I think this cause the teenagers (the group) do not realise the pressures that build up on adults and need a break from things.
I am going to study certain groups in poverty and try to find the reasons why these groups are in poverty; the groups I am going to study are women, children and the elderly.
Women’s poverty is compounded over a lifetime; they are most likely to experience poverty than men. In 1995, 59% of adults supported by income support are women (source: social security statistics 1995).
Figure 6:Mean independent income of women, 1991, by source and family type
Source: S Webb, ‘women’s incomes: past, present and prospects’, Fiscal Studies.
Steven Webb (1991) found that in 1991 two-thirds of adults in the poorest households were women and women is these households had about half as much independent income as men - £99.90 per week compared with £199.50 (see figure 6). The sources of income for men and women were noticeably different; for example, social security was the principal source of income for lone mothers and women pensioners. For women, access to independent income from the labour market was associated with not having dependant children. Among married women, the amount of independent income was dependent on the age of the youngest child and the economic activity of the husband.
There are many reasons for this like most women work in part time jobs which are low paid and have a low status. There is a strong association with low pay and part time work. In 1994, 4.83 million women worked part time and 77 per cent of them were low paid (source: The New Review, Low pay unit). The majority of single parents are women, looking after children swallows up a large amount of time so they are mainly tied down to childcare than work. The London Livings Standards Survey found that among parents with a child under five, women spent 65 hours a week on childcare compared to 20 hours spent by men (source: U Kowarzik and J Popay). Looking after children has a big effect on women’s employment and earning capacity. Women who are single parents often cannot afford childcare, so can not earn a living and this may lead to them relying on state benefits, such as child support and income support. Women also have a longer life expectancy and their reduced access to pensions mean that a high proportion are living out their lives on pitiful levels of income.
Women are generally more responsible for childcare and domestic work, the burden of managing poverty often falls upon women.
Miller (1997) suggests two groups that suffer from poverty the most, older women living alone and lone mothers. Oppenhiem (1993) maintains that women often put needs of family members before their own and so this can lead to them going without. A woman can be in poverty while other members of her family are not, or she may suffer from deeper poverty.
Poverty which affects children in the most shocking. The figures below show that children have been more vulnerable to poverty than society as a whole throughout the period from 1979 to 1992/93 (see figure 7). In 1992/93 there were 4.3 million children living in poverty – 33 per cent of all children this compares to the 1.4 million in 1979 – 10 per cent of all children. So between 1979 and 1992/92 there has been large increase in the number of children in poverty, as you can also see on figure 7.
Figure 7: Proportion of children living in poverty between 1979-1992/3
(Source: DSS, households below average income).
The children which are in poverty,
Another group that may suffer poverty is children, this is because the only source of income they have is pocket money or money given to them on special occasions as gifts. For some children they do not receive any pocket money, this leads to children having to rely on their parents. When children live in poverty they have difficulties buying clothes and other belongings they may need. For children, going to school and seeing other children of the same age with belongings and possessions that they want but they know they cannot due to financial problems may be difficult. Children in lone-parent families may be irrationally exposed particular to poverty. Alan Walker (1997) suggests that this means that two generations are being destroyed by poverty at the same time.
Lone-parent families also suffer from poverty because they are prevented from getting a full-time job because of the lack of childcare facilities. From looking at my questionnaire, some people suggest single parents also suffer from poverty because they can only work part time which in general get lower rates of pay. The costs of childcare often mean single parents cannot afford to work. The majority of single parents are women, who in any case get less pay than men. This may lead to them finding it hard to pay for the bills and the child or children’s needs, for example school uniform, equipment for school and general belongings.
Poverty is a controversial issue because there is no single agreed way of defining it. This means different researchers work with different definitions of poverty. Defining poverty has proved difficult as many researchers have their own definitions. Defining poverty is difficult for a number of reasons. We need to be able to define poverty in order to identify and measure it.
Definitions of poverty affect how we measure poverty and the extent in which it exists. Our definition of poverty also influences our views and how it should be tackled.
Pavandeep Johal 11Z
Poverty Coursework
