With reference to theories, concepts and ideologies of welfare, critically examine the relationship between social ‘problems’, social policies and professional practices in one area of social policy.  

Course: Social Work MA

Module: Social Policy

Word Count: 4440

Pages: 15

This essay will trace through  and discuss how the  social ‘problem’ of poverty in general and  women’s poverty  in particular is shaped and defined within the paradigms of   welfare state ideologies of neo-liberalism, neo-conservativism, social democracy and the third way. This essay will also discuss the social work response to women in poverty within different welfare ideologies. The latter part of this essay will critically examine New Labour’s Welfare to Work as a social policy response to poverty in general and its implications for women in poverty who also have caring responsibilities.

Brief definition of poverty

 

The modern concept of poverty was established by Rowntree (1941) who defined poverty in absolute terms, as something experienced by those living below a specified line. Currently the poverty line is set at 60% of median; the point at which means tested state support becomes available.  This can be contrasted with the relative definition of poverty which is derived from the comparison of the standard of living between the poor and those in the majority of the society who are not poor. The two approaches to poverty differ in how they seek to define poverty. Absolute definitions, appeals to scientific and objective way of establishing levels of poverty. Whereas relative definition recognises the subjective element of judgement involved in determining poverty levels.  Both definitions have their limitations, as absolute definitions require relative judgement and relative judgements will require ‘some absolute core’ to distinguish them from broader inequalities (Alcock, 1997).  The tensions and limitations between the two definitions of poverty highlight the contest and contentious nature of poverty.  As we shall see with women’s poverty,  as a political word poverty tends to be circularly defined by  different welfare ideologies and their policies claiming to solve the social ‘problem’ of poverty.

Poverty among women; the evidence

The press release by the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) (2003) publicising their report on ‘Gender and Poverty in Britain’ (2003) calls for urgent government action ‘specifically to tackle women’s poverty’. In order to illuminate  the gendered aspect of poverty, the report cites findings from Poverty and Social Exclusion Survey  that suggests that  women are more likely than men to be poor, ‘ on all four dimensions of poverty’ which consists of lacking in 2 or more necessities, earnings below 60% of the median income, subjective poverty and receiving of income support. Further evidence is provided Women’s Budget Group (WBG), an independent UK group that works to promote gender equality, states in its report Women and Children’s poverty that women are  at a greater risk of poverty than men, but they are also likely to experience ‘recurrent  and longer spells’. (Lister, 2005)  

Hidden poverty of women; from Poverty to Social Exclusion

EOC’s (2003) report suggests that in comparison to men, 14% of women are more likely to live in low income households below the official measure of poverty. At the same time the report recognises that the reality of women living in poverty is much higher than what is reflected by the official statistics. The reports argue that women’s poverty is hidden because the official statistics which measures household income rather than individual’s income masks the fact that women have lower income and assets than men.

The fact that women’s poverty is hidden points to a much larger problem than that of poverty - but also one of social exclusion.  Social exclusion is a ‘relational dynamic’ (Williams, 1998) and extends beyond class and distributional issues addressed by poverty. It provides a broader framework to understand the multi-dimensional disadvantages faced by women in poverty. (Barry, 1998)  Women are socially excluded due to social relations of power and control within a patriarchal society and the resulting marginalisation and exclusion of women from full participation in the society they live in. We will return to this topic later on in this essay.

Women’s poverty through the history of welfare state

 It can be argued that women’s poverty is a by-product of their experience of social exclusion. (However, it is important to bear in mind that social exclusion and poverty are not synonymous terms, as one does not necessarily lead to another.) The EOC’s (2003) report suggests that one of the main reasons why women face a greater risk of poverty is because the British social policy is based on the ‘out of touch’ assumption that women have a ‘man’s income to fall back on’. This is not a surprising revelation, as history tells us that the welfare state itself is predicated on the patriarchal ‘male bread-winner’ model of family. Beverage’s report (1942) which laid down some of the foundation for today’s welfare state, was based on the assumption that women would make ‘marriage their sole occupation’ (Beveridge, 1942). In other words, women would stay at home to do the housework and bring-up children. Men on the other hand, will go out to earn a living to provide for the family. Beveridge’s assumption of the ‘natural’ caring responsibilities of women and their economic dependence on their husbands  led him to exclude  women from his social security proposals (Alcock, 1997)  Thus, women were deprived of one of the most fundamental rights to welfare provision that is intended to protect one from poverty. Unfortunately, reality does not tally up with the assumptions made by Beveridge, as resources are not always equitably allocated within households as a women ‘rely on the discretion of her partner and is ill prepared should the partnership break-down’. (Lister, 2005)

Needless to say that the ‘male bread winner’ familial ideology is rooted in patriarchy and entrenched within the welfare state is strongly biased in favour of men at the expense of women’s rights and needs. Not only does it force women into dependency on men, by assuming a women’s role is to care, it restricts her life opportunities. By framing the women’s work within the private sphere of home, it strips its status as labour. (Thompson, 2001)  On the other hand, men’s work in the public domain is considered worthwhile enough to be financially rewarded. Thus the gendered division between ‘paid and unpaid’ work emerges, where women’s work is denied equal status to that of a men.

Join now!

As a result of this pervasive existence of inequality and sexism inherent to a patriarchal society, women’s experience is underpinned by the experience of oppression; which can be defined as ‘…..hardship and injustice brought about by dominance of one group over another; the negative and demeaning exercise of power’ (Thompson 2001). Some effects of oppression and inequality faced by women are poverty, powerless-nests, lack of rights, unmet needs and subjection to social control and second class citizenship. The life chances and opportunities of women living in poverty are severely restricted, excluding them from fully exercising their citizenship rights. ...

This is a preview of the whole essay