final resort. Marsland, D. (1989 cited in Taylor, P. Richardson, J. Yeo, A. Marsh, I.
Trobe, K. Pilkington, A.1995) Market liberal theorists also state this and it is argued that
“as long as the state continues to maintain the poor they have no incentive for helping
themselves.” Taylor, P. Richardson, J. Yeo, A. Marsh, I. Trobe, K. Pilkington, A. (1995:
182) this shows the poor need to take responsibility for their situation and not rely on the
welfare state as their dependency. “Market liberal theorists also argue that recipients of
benefits are also better off not workings” Taylor, P. Richardson, J. Yeo, A. Marsh, I.
Trobe, K. Pilkington, A. (1995: 183) This is because as working people they would be
taxed and would lose certain benefits like free school meals.
Furthermore according to some New Right thinkers, such as Charles Murray and Digby
Anderson it is believed that “a new underclass is emerging – a social class below the
working class which is dependent on welfare benefits.” Murray, C. and Anderson, D.
(1990 cited in Taylor, P. Richardson, J. Yeo, A. Marsh, I. Trobe, K. Pilkington, A.1995:
182) Murray claims the ‘underclass’ do not take responsibility for their own welfare by
failing to seriously look for work when unemployed. Murray, C (1990 cited in Taylor, P.
Richardson, J. Yeo, A. Marsh, I. Trobe, K. Pilkington, A.1995) This shows state
benefits support the underclass and create a culture of dependency.
Another approach within the dependency-based explanations is the culture of poverty.
This approach stresses that the way people act is a result of how they are brought up by
their family and “individuals are brought up in such a way that they never have a chance
to escape the poverty of their parents.” Taylor, P. Richardson, J. Yeo, A. Marsh, I. Trobe,
K. Pilkington, A. (1995: 182) This idea of a culture of poverty was first suggested by
Oscar Lewis when he studied the very poor in Central America. “Lewis argued that poor
people were likely to develop a set of values and behavior that were different from the
majority of the population and this behavior would trap them into poverty.” Lewis, O.
(1966 cited in Moore, S. Chapman, S. Aiken, D. (2001) This argument suggests that
people are not poor because of their deficiency but because they themselves are setting
themselves values that are stopping them from breaking out of poverty. These values lead
the poor to except their fate of poverty rather then trying to improve their lives. Lewis
argues that once established, the culture of poverty “tends to perpetuate itself from
generation to generation because of its effect on children. By the time slum children are
age six or seven, they have usually absorbed the basic values and attitudes of their
subculture and are not geared to take advantage of increased opportunities which may
occur in their lifetime.” O, Lewis. (1966 cited in M, Haralambos and M, Holborn 1995:
150)
The final approach within the dependency-based explanations is the underclass. This
approach is a more subtle development of the individual explanation. It suggests that
there is a distant ‘underclass’ that exists of people who are lazy and make no effort to
work or look after themselves. Moore, S (1996) This explanation shows how some
people prefer to live off the state rather than having to work for their money. The
underclass only refers to those who make no effort to help themselves, however we must
accept that there are poor people who are in this state through no fault of their own.
“Nevertheless, the bulk of poverty is caused by those who do not make the effort to earn
a living/or squander what they do have.” Moore, S. (1996: 293) Charles Murray an
American sociologist first developed the ideas on the underclass. According to Murray
members of the underclass were not simply the poorest members of society – they were
those whose lifestyles involved a ‘type of poverty.’ According to Murray, this involves
particular forms of behavior for example “a person defined not by his condition, e.g. long
term unemployed, but by his deplorable behavior in response to that condition, e.g.
unwilling to take the jobs that are available to them.” Murray, C. (1989 cited in M,
Haralambos and M, Holborn 1995: 154)
In contrast to the dependency based explanations that the poor are in someway to blame
for their poverty is the exclusion-based explanation. As mentioned earlier these
explanations suggest that in someway the poor are not to be blamed for their own poverty
and that the poor are in that situation because they are taken out of a decent standard of
living by the actions of others who are more powerful then them in society.
There are two approaches within the exclusion-based explanations. One of these
is the dyswelfare view. “Dyswelfare describes the process in which some
people lose out in complex industrial societies, through no fault of their own.” Moore, S.
(1996: 295). Examples of those ‘victims’ of the dyswelfare view include individuals like
the physically and mentally disabled people, single parents, women, ethnic minorities and
children. These individuals have higher chance of living in poverty firstly because society
does not intentionally discriminate against any group, but it is certain that some people
lose out in any form of society. Secondly their poverty is result of changes in the natures
of society. Stephen Moore (1996) Furthermore when these individuals do get into
employment, it is most likely to be short term and low paid etc. Moore, S. Chapman, S.
Aiken, D. (2001) the aim here is to emphasise that their poverty is blameless and that
there are differences in power between various groups in society. “For many supporters
of the welfare state, it is these groups who deserve help, because they are blameless
‘victims’ of the economic system.” Moore, S. Chapman, S. Aiken, D. (2001: 142)
In addition to this the second approach within the exclusion-based explanations of the
a cause of poverty is the economic system approach. This final explanation comes from
the Marxist tradition. It is believed that some groups in society have more power than
others in society and these groups impose their views on the powerlessness and exploit
those that work for them. Stephen Moore (1996) "Poverty is then emerged from three
main causes” Moore, S. Chapman, S. Aiken, D. (2001: 142) these include wealth of the
ruling class being created by paying lowest wages possible. The poor acting as a warning,
as a group in poverty “provides a direct warning to the rest of the workforce of what
could happen to them if they didn’t work hard.” Moore, S. Chapman, S. Aiken, D. (2001:
142) and finally the poor providing a stating point “against which others can measure
their own income rather then that of the ruling class Moore, S. Chapman, S. Aiken, D.
(2001) Although this explanation suggests the poor are not to blame for their poverty like
the dyswelfare view it still contrasts with the dyswelfare view because it says poverty is
the result of the direct outcome of modern society.
To conclude there is a huge debate over the causes of poverty and who is to blame. As
mentioned earlier it is shown that some people are more in danger of being in poverty
than others. Especially those individuals who are excluded from the labour market by
such things as old age, disability etc. Most sociologists argue that the causes of poverty
are to be found in the structure of society rather then the behavior of individuals. Taylor,
P. Richardson, J. Yeo, A. Marsh, I. Trobe, K. Pilkington, A. (1995) However on the other
hand the evidence above suggests that the individuals are to blame for their own poverty.
Overall most evidence suggests that the welfare state plays a big in part in this and there
is much evidence to suggest the welfare state does little to reduce economic inequality in
society. Finally we must also consider other factors which are involved such as how
poverty is actually defined and measured.
Bibliography
Books
-
Haralambos, M. Holborn, M. (1995): Sociology Themes and perspectives, Italy: Create.
-
Stephen Moore. (1996): Sociology Alive, Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes
-
Stephen Moore, Steve Chapman and Dave Aiken. (2001): Sociology for As-level, London: HarperCollins.
-
Paul Taylor, John Richardson, Alan Yeo, Ian Marsh, Keith Trobe and Andrew Pilkington. (1995): Sociology in focus Bristol: Causeway.