When poverty is measured using the relative approach it is more a case of being excluded from what is considered normal within the society you live. Poverty is not just measured in terms of basic material needs. Peter Townsend highlighted this approach during the 1930’s. Townsend argues that it is about acceptable standards, basic necessities of the 21st Century like running water and electricity, by not having these things that others take for granted, you are not considered their equal (Moore 2002). One advantage of using a relative approach to poverty would be that it portrays a realistic view and relates poverty to society in general. However a disadvantage would be that there would always be someone who didn’t have what others considered a basic necessity. The idea of a consensual definition of poverty was first used by Mack and Lansley during the 1980’s. They conducted research in order to compile a list of things that were considered necessities. They then went on to ask people to put these necessities in order of importance (Mack and Lansley 1985). Thirty-five items were included in the list and if any one could not afford three or more they were considered poor (Moore 2002). These necessities ranged from the most important, heating to warm areas of the home and an inside toilet down to a packet of cigarettes a day.
By using a consensual definition of poverty the problems that are associated with the absolute definition of poverty, with regards to necessities within a particular society and relative definitions, where a persons living standard are not always a reflection of their income, can be avoided.
Relief from poverty has come from various sources over the years. Before government policy the relief would usually come from families, friends, the church, the community, employers and trade unions or co-operative societies. The first state legislation was the Poor Law Act of 1601, which stated that local communities should be responsible for caring for the poor, the sick and the elderly. By the beginning of the nineteenth century it became apparent that due to the upheavals caused by the industrial revolution, local communities could no longer be relied on to provide the help. By 1834 the Poor Law Amendment made provision for only the old and the sick, all other relief was to come from the Workhouses. By early 1900’s a number of important measures were introduced by the liberals, such as the first old age pensions in 1908 for the over seventies. By 1942 Sir William Beveridge had written his report and launched the beginning of the Welfare State as we know it today. During the 1950’s and 60’s there was a period of economic growth due to an abundance of employment and many felt that poverty seemed to be virtually non existent (Taylor et al 2002).
Various explanations have been offered for the causes of poverty. Since the 1970’s there has emerged the concept of an underclass, which has been used more and more to describe the poor. This underclass is said to consist of such ones as, single parent families, the unemployed, the low paid, the homeless and those who live off state benefits. The New Right explains the theory of an underclass as a way of life and an attitude which results in a dependency on the state. This type of attitude prevents them from escaping poverty and creates a culture of poverty. This idea of a culture of poverty came from an anthropologist called Oscar Lewis who studied poor communities in Puerto Rico and Mexico. His theory was that the poor lived amid a culture of poverty that stopped them getting out of it and secluded them from the rest of society (Lewis 1985). This culture of poverty meant that the poor only lived for the present, they shared a feeling of failure and became dependant on welfare benefits and these attitudes were passed on to the next generation. This view of a dependency culture argues the New Right, has led people to become less self-reliant. The benefits offered by the welfare state are thought to be far too generous and encourage people to remain unemployed. In 1996 the Conservative government brought in a scheme, which merged Income Support with Unemployment Benefit and encouraged more to return to work. The scheme also divided those who were genuinely looking for employment from those who were happy to rely on the state (Lawson and Garrod 1996). If people were unwilling to work then the New Right believed the poverty they experienced was their own fault.
The Social Democratic view of poverty differs greatly from that of the New Right. They argue that there is a structural explanation to poverty understood by examining three main categories. The first explanation states that poverty is caused by the situation that certain groups within society fall into. For example, the elderly, the disabled or the unemployed are living in poverty through no fault of their own. The government’s response to this is that the Welfare State is needed to help these ones escape poverty. The second of these categories used to explain the causes of poverty is social exclusion. This means being excluded from the economic, political and cultural systems and gives people the feeling that they are no longer a member of society. New Labour have addressed the problem of social exclusion by creating more jobs, improving wages by introducing minimum wage payments and increasing benefits for low income families through the Working Families Tax Credits. By the introduction of WFTC to boost income support for families, the Labour government has also reduced the number of children living in poverty and are continuing with their pledge to reduce it even further by 2010 (Elliot and Denny 2001). The final category is said to be caused by a capitalist economic system. The Social Democratic view is that capitalism creates an unequal distribution of wealth, forces wages down and increases profits for those who are already wealthy.
Various groups in Britain experience poverty. Children and women were found to be more likely than men to be poor. Older people, the disabled and minority ethnic groups were also vulnerable. In Britain people can become poor because of both social and economic pressures (Flaherty et al 2004). The latest annual report on poverty and social exclusion 2004, used 50 different indicators, including measures of income, employment, education, health, housing and crime. The report showed that 12.4 million people were living in households whose net income fell below the poverty line. This figure showed a reduction since 1996/97, when the figure was 14 million. The report also highlighted a fall in the number of children living in poor households from 4.3 million down to 3.6 million. However, the number of childless working age adults living below the poverty line increased, as did the numbers of people who were unemployed but wanted to do paid work and those on long term unemployment due to sickness or disability (poverty.org.uk 15/02/05).
This essay has highlighted the fact that poverty is not just about lack of income. Many poor families still have the same modern material things that others have and yet they still feel excluded. Poverty can also mean the denial of choices, the inability to live a tolerable life. Townsend highlighted this when he talked about both material and social deprivation. When individuals experienced both, Townsend referred to Multiple Deprivation (Townsend et al 1988). Unfortunately despite the development of the Welfare State and numerous government initiatives the problems of poverty still exist. This essay has highlighted this fact and shown how different governments have tried to eradicate poverty with some success, since in Britain poverty continues to decline in some areas but not all.
