Absolute poverty focuses on the ‘capacity to survive’. The main resources being food, water, clothing, and shelter. This concept of poverty is an objective one and is based on the notion of ‘substinence’. Booth (1889) and Rowntree (1901) contributed to the early works of absolute poverty, Rowntree conducted one of the first poverty surveys in 1889. Rowntree used the substinence notion of poverty in these studies. He introduced the primary poverty line, which was based on the minimum substinence measures. Rowntree wrote:
“My primary poverty line represented the minimum sum on which physical efficiency could be maintained. It was a bare standard of substinence rather than living… Such a minimum does not by any means constitute a reasonable living way” (Oppenheim, 2000, P7)
One of the reasons why many sociologist don’t like using this definition of poverty is that It does not take into account ones cultural or social needs. Absolute definitions of poverty are based on a list of physiological requirements. Many think that this definition of poverty is too harsh, as it is very erratic thinking that humans actually live like this on ‘physiological requirements alone’. One of the leading problems with this notion is that society changes rapidly over time, as peoples expectations do, due to the demands society puts on them. Therefore, the minimum substinence level is shaped by society as a whole. Studies that rely upon the absolute concept don’t take into account such changes, making it hard for academics to measure poverty. Rowntreee discovered this in his 1950’s studies; he realized that the minimum substinence level had changed, in 1936 a radio and presents were included then in 1990 this was changed to swimming trips, cinema, and leisure activities. This then causes difficulties when comparing such data. Some may also argue that we don’t such things for ‘minimum substinence’. Rowntree carried out all his poverty surveys in York, this meant that they relied upon the lifestyles that York people have. This makes the validity of these studies very low, as it is very irregular that all societies have the same lifestyle. For this definition of poverty to be more reliable it must be relative to society taking into account time and space variations.
Commenters rarely rely upon the absolute notion of poverty as they see it as been ‘outdated’ and disadvantageous, however some do still value it. Lord Joseph is one of the few and he argued that:
“An absolute standard of means is defined by reference to the actual needs of the poor and not by reference to the expenditure of those who are not poor. A family is poor if they can not afford to eat…” (Howard, 2001, P. 7)
Relative poverty is a more complicated concept, and is an objective one rather than subjective. Since the late 20th century this notion of poverty as being a popular one, however controversial too. Townsend introduced the first ideas of relative poverty in the 1950’s and raised many doubts about the validity of Rowntrees conclusions. He believes that poverty continues to exist because it is not narrowly defined. Townsend stated that Individuals, families, and groups of the population can said to be in relative poverty when:
“…. They can not obtain, at all or sufficiently, the conditions of life- that is, the diets, amenities, standards, and services. Which allows them to play the roles, participate in the relationships and follow the customary behaviour which is expected of them by virtue of their membership of society…” (Townsend, 1993, P. 36)
This concept of poverty is measured by comparing the standards of living of the poor in society, compared with those standards that are enjoyed by society in general. Basically, relative poverty is defined as households with an income below 50% of the median in the country studied. How this form of measure is used depends on a number of decisions. An element of judgement might need to be involved when determining the poverty levels. Problems with this approached were exposed by Sen. (1983). Some studies might take a tight definition towards this approach whilst others might look at it in a broader concept. This problem was highlighted in Townsend’s research (1965) ‘The poor and the poorest’. He carried out some poverty research, asking people if they lacked certain goods but not why they did lack them. People might choose to go without such things not because they can’t afford them. This could be disadvantageous when relying on studies that use this approach, as there is only a difference of pence between those who are and are not poor. Another problem with measuring poverty this way is why 50%? Who sets the line? A further negative point to highlight when studies use this approach is that it doesn’t take into consideration other forms of wealth, for example savings, investments etc… A prime example of this is where people save all of their younger lives to retire at a very early age and live the rest of their lives as luxurious as they can using their savings. Such people will be classed as been relatively poor. To adopt a strict relative definition is to imply that the poor in Iraq are no worse of than the poor in Britain, which is ridiculous.
A positive point about studies that rely on the relative notion is that they allow for changes in ones income, as in Townsend’s research in 1960 ‘The Household expenditure survey’. This form of research also gives a clear definition, as a poverty line is set therefore poverty can easily be measured.
Studies carried out rely more upon the ‘relative’ concept however on the balance of all the evidence I have concluded that the best way in which poverty can be defined and measured is by using both of the concepts. Support shows that the absolute notion of poverty carries some element of relative within it, so it can be concluded that this is the best approach to take. As More (1989) states:
“Relative notions of poverty are ‘bizarre’, because they seem to be suggesting that, as poverty was related to the average standards of living, it would continue to exist no matter how wealthy a country becomes”. (Alcock, 1997, p.7).
Bibliography
Alcock.P, 2001, Understanding Poverty, Second Edition, Macmillan.
Howard. M, 2001, Poverty the Facts, Fourth Edition, London, CPAG.
Dixon,J and Macarov, D. Poverty, 2001, Canada, MPG.
Oppenhiem. C, 1993, Poverty the Facts, CPAG.
Wedderburn. D. 1974, Poverty inequality and class structure, Cambridge.
Townsend,P. 1971, The concept of Poverty, London, Heinman.
Alcock, P. 1993, Understanding Poverty, Macmillian.
Alcock, C. Payne, S. Sullivan. 2004, Introducing Social Policy, Macmillian.
Townsend. P. 1983, Poverty in the UK, London, Macmillian.
www. doh. Gov. uk.
www. Ukpha.org.uk
www.guardian.co.uk
