Is there a threshold beyond absolute poverty that is necessary for a healthy and sane human life?

The Beveridge Report followed in 1942, addressing the principles necessary to banish poverty in Britain. The paper proposed a system of social security that would be operated by the state, which is still considered to provide the foundation of the modern welfare state system. Thus, the actual definition of poverty becomes more important, if the aim of social security is to alleviate the effects of poverty then we should first must understand its meaning.

As Beveridge's mantra throughout his report was 'abolition of want' the calculation of a subsistence level should have taken into account the expenditure required for the development of the mental, moral and social sides of human nature. This concept of relative poverty may prove more useful in the context of the welfare state itself, where the subsistence level provides the income a person, or family, needs to purchase basic necessities, identified relative to the current structure of society and the economy, e.g. where a refrigerator would be a basic necessity for someone living in modern Britain, it would probably not be considered necessary for those living in Dickensian England; in other words, “to have one bowl of rice in a society where all other people have half a bowl may well be a sign of achievement…to have five bowls of rice in a society where the majority have a decent, balanced diet is a tragedy.”

Regarding poverty in developed countries, Wilkinson argues there is no correlation between health and income but there is a significant correlation between income inequality and health. Whilst citizens of all nations require a basic subsistence level to physically survive, the concept of poverty should take account of the deprivation of living conditions and amenities enjoyed in the subject’s society. Being poor isn’t just about a lack of money, at a recent workshop an anonymous contributor said about poverty, “in part it is about money. It is also about being isolated, unsupported, uneducated and unwanted.”

Adam Smith suggested work was the basis for all well-being and there are also studies to show that the education, health, life-expectancy and employment prospects of the children of families with low incomes are much worse than they are for children of affluent families. In a modern-day society where physical well-being, literacy, adequate housing and access to education are becoming the norm, then surely poverty should not be described in the absolute terms.

Poverty also means being treated as a second-class citizen by the rest of society, even Hollywood suggested, “there is no nobility in poverty anymore”. Elucidated in terms of relative poverty, as discussed by Townsend, who wrote that people are in poverty “when they lack the resources to obtain the type of diet, participate in the activities, and have the living conditions which are customary, or at least widely encouraged and approved, in the societies to which they belong.” Townsend is writing about a relative deprivation, based on observations that participation in certain everyday activities varied little between income groups but fell off rapidly below a certain level of income; these people falling below the subsistence level that would provide a conventional lifestyle. Such deprivation can exist when the provision of physical and psychological needs is below the substantive level to maintain that person in an optimum state of physical and mental health.

It is this theory of relative deprivation social scientists have used to explain psychosomatic stress and participation in urban riots. This impact of growth on poverty is also seen to depend on the attention granted to concerns over relative deprivation. Therefore, the role of the state in eradicating poverty becomes more important than merely providing for the poorer citizen’s basic needs, they should seek to create a better society for all where everyone is given the opportunity to contribute.

As such, poverty does not mean being deprived of certain goods, but it depends on the norm for the time and place in which you live. King Arthur was not poor because he did not have a Sony Playstation or a decent mobile ‘phone; to be rich in his time and society he had no need of either. Everyone needs food, clothing and shelter, but also require knowledge, work and communication in sufficient quantity and quality to meet our minimum requirements.

So there is a threshold beyond absolute poverty that is necessary for a healthy and sane human life. To quote Marxist philosophy, “our needs and enjoyments spring from society; we measure them…by society and not by the objects of their satisfaction. Because they are of a social nature, they are of a relative nature.”