8 Key excerpts on "Poverty and Wealth"

• 

  eBook - ePub

  Poverty, the Bible, and Africa

  Contextual Foundations for Helping the Poor

  • Isaac Boaheng(Author)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • HippoBooks

    (Publisher)

  [3]

  Wagle’s perspective on poverty centers on income or the standard of living. He explains poverty as a state in which one lacks income or other economic resources required for maintaining a minimum living standard.[4] Wagle, however, considers it inappropriate to set a universal minimum income in defining who the poor is.[5] He does not agree with such thresholds because, in his opinion, it is not just how much one earns but the capacity to consume that determines who is poor and who is not.[6] Pantazis, Gordon and Levitas agree with Wagle and argue that someone may earn a relatively small amount but save more than one who earns relatively high income.[7] Therefore, what matters is how much one saves, not just how much they earn.

  The Capabilities Deprivation Approach

  A. K. Sen is responsible for the second perspective on poverty. Sen’s approach employs two key terms, namely functionings and capabilities.[8] Functionings means the things one succeeds in doing or being, such as being healthy, while capabilities are the freedom to achieve valuable functionings, such as the ability to enjoy social life and self-esteem.[9] Sen pointed out at least two pitfalls of the resource-centric approach to the understanding of poverty.[10] First, he argued, human needs vary between communities, families, and even individuals in such a way that different communities, families, and individuals need different amounts of resources to achieve the same capabilities. Second, income alone cannot be used to measure poverty because it is only one of the factors that determine what people can do and be.[11]

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Quality of Life

  Concept, Policy and Practice

  • David Phillips(Author)
  • 2006(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  It is clear from the above discussion that poverty is an ideologically highly contested concept and that there are at least two varying approaches to its ‘objective’ definition, with rather a slippery slope between them. Also, at least in Britain, there is a strong relationship between subjective and objective definitions of poverty, even though the subjective definition has a wider scope. In spite of the contestations and disagreements, poverty is a relatively straightforward concept: it is about unmet needs, both material and social, and it can be measured, either in relation to inputs, that is income, or outputs, whether people can afford certain purchases. In one of its theoretical manifestations – a ‘strict’ absolute conceptualisation – it is, at least in principle, a universal construct amenable to cross-country comparisons (although it is not easy to see how this can be done in practice). In one of its operational manifestations – as a fixed proportion of average incomes – crosscountry comparisons can be made rather straightforwardly (though the theoretical base for this is rather shaky and the resulting metrics are a measure more of relative income inequality between countries than strict comparisons of poverty).

  Having said this, there are some conceptual problems with poverty that do reduce its effectiveness as a social or societal construct of quality of life. Vobruba (2000) sums up the main issue by depicting poverty as being ‘one-dimensional’ in that it is not synonymous with vulnerability or deprivation in broad terms but only in relation to their material manifestation. He claims it is useful for description but not so good at explanation. Layte and Whelan (2003: 188) reiterate this point. They emphasise issues of cultural specificity in cross-national studies of poverty and highlight the different roles played by welfare regimes, country institutions, market incomes and structured inequalities within individual countries. Similarly, de Haan (1999) criticises an over-concentration on problems associated with poverty leading to one-sided policy priorities being set on economic growth rather than on social integration. Gough (1997: 82) brings several of these themes together. He criticises poverty for being conceptually too narrow and as being socially, historically and culturally specific. He claims that it lacks a clear basis in a universalistic ethics and is open to charges of cultural specificity. His main case is that poverty is just not conceptually strong enough in explanatory power and that it is anyway outdated in relation to late modern cosmopolitan culturally plural societies.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Poverty

  A Persistent Global Reality

  • Professor John Dixon, John Dixon, David Macarov, Professor John Dixon, John Dixon, David Macarov(Authors)
  • 2002(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Poverty in the United Kingdom (1979) he conceptualised relative poverty as one where material consumption and social participation in a wide range of customary social activities is inhibited by lack of resources. More recently he has suggested:

  Poverty may be best understood as applying . . . to those whose resources do not allow them to fulfil the elaborate social demands and customs which have been placed upon citizens of that society . . . . If people lack or are denied resources to obtain access to diets, amenities, standards, services, and activities which are common or customary in society, or to meet the obligations expected of them or imposed upon them in their social roles and relationships and so fulfil membership of society, they may be said to be in poverty.

  (Townsend 1993: 36)

  Adopting a relative definition of poverty certainly complicates the research and policy process, in theoretical and practical ways. Theoretically, there is likely to be disagreement about the appropriate levels for comparison, and at the practical level it assumes a considerable volume of accurate and regularly up-dated information about income and consumption patterns. In many places this information is simply not available or is unreliable, and policy-makers must look elsewhere. But as a critical concept relative poverty points us in the right direction and gives us a yardstick by which progress can be evaluated.

  THE MEASUREMENT OF POVERTY

  If serious research is to be undertaken into the extent and nature of poverty, or if policies are to be developed that try to reduce the extent of poverty, then reliable and relevant measures need to be developed that will enable us to determine how many poor there are in any given population and what are the social characteristics of the poor (for example, their gender, ages, family circumstances and work-experience).

  There is a wide range of possible measures that have been developed and deployed in different countries. As we would expect the kind of measure chosen reflects the underlying concept and definition of poverty that has been adopted. If the chosen measure has been adopted by responsible public authorities to help make informed policy decisions then the measure will also reflect the dominant prevailing ideology of social policy. It will also be influenced by the availability of appropriate and reliable social data which can be used as the basis for the calculation.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Key Themes in Social Policy

  • Patricia Kennedy(Author)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Poverty

  DOI: 10.4324/9780203594186-82

  Related entries: Capabilities; Functionings; Household; Need; Social exclusion

  Poverty is generally understood to mean lacking resources. The complexity of trying to define and measure poverty is clear from Spicker and colleagues (2007 ), who present in excess of 200 terms in their glossary on poverty. There are two broad conceptions of poverty – absolute and relative – but many other closely related concepts, such as primary poverty, secondary poverty, measurement of poverty, dynamic poverty, risk of poverty, consistent poverty and the feminization of poverty, are found in the literature. Pinker (1999 : 1) observes that explanations on the causes of poverty tend to be structural, focusing on the institutionalization of inequality and macro-economic issues and, on the other hand, on the behaviour of people, which can extend beyond generations. Poverty has held a central place in social policy literature for generations of scholars. Harris (1977 : 3) refers to the discovery of poverty in the 1880s to 1890s, referring undoubtedly to the pioneering work of Charles Booth (1840–1916) and Seebohm Rowntree (1871–1957). Booth, a philanthropist whose work can be accessed online through the London School of Economics (http://booth.lse.ac.uk/ ), conducted major studies of poverty in London. Life and Labour of the People stretched to seventeen volumes published between 1889 and 1903. He was committed to the idea of a poverty line, defined in terms of minimal requirements for survival. He defined the very poor as those whose means were insufficient ‘according to the normal standards of life in this country’ (Booth, 1892: 33). Thus, he understood poverty in relative terms.

  Rowntree carried out a comprehensive survey of 11,560 families or 46,754 individuals in York, during which investigators visited every ‘working class’ home. It was published as Poverty, a Study of Town Life (1901). Many of the terms associated with poverty studies in social policy literature can be traced back to this work. Like Booth, he was committed to the notion that it is possible to draw a poverty line which indicates an absolute minimum standard of living. He drew on nutritional studies to determine the number of calories necessary for people to function and then he costed these. This is also known as the subsistence or budget standard approach. By this method one defines and costs a set of goods and services which are considered to be the minimum necessary for physical survival. The income needed to cover this minimum is then the poverty line. According to Rowntree, those living below the poverty line were those with ‘an income insufficient to obtain the minimum necessaries for the maintenance of merely physical efficiency’ (Rowntree, 1901 : 134). Rowntree did not allow for any spending on ‘The maintenance of mental, moral or social sides of human nature’ (Rowntree, 1901 : 86). He differentiated between primary and secondary poverty. The former includes those who did not have enough income to meet the costs of their basic needs. Secondary poverty includes those who have sufficient income to meet their basic needs but spend it on other items. In 1936 Rowntree conducted a second study, Poverty and Progres s, in which he took a more relative approach. He allowed for the inclusion of such items as postage stamps, radios, books, tobacco, beer, presents, holidays and, interestingly, trade union membership. He recognized that needs are specific to time and place. People’s standards of living must be viewed in relative terms. In 1951 Rowntree published Poverty and the Welfare State

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Social Work with Children and Families

  Developing Advanced Practice

  • Penelope Welbourne(Author)
  • 2012(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  structural explanations, which account for poverty in terms of multi-level oppression. From a structural theoretical perspective, poverty is linked to the cycle of market fluctuations and market-related factors such as low wages, low unemployment benefits, unemployment, etc. There are also structural barriers to escaping poverty including poor education, poor health services and low access to credit, among other things.

  These different theoretical perspectives suggest different policy approaches to the problem of poverty: attempting to change the attitudes and skills of poor individuals – ‘individual’ theories; challenging the ‘culture of poverty’ through changing social norms and values; and lastly through changing the economic and political structures that affect the kind of life choices poorer people can make and maximising their ability to be socially mobile while protecting the income of those who are unable to earn enough for themselves.

  Poverty is not a straightforward concept. The title of this chapter reflects both the complexity of the idea of poverty in a post-industrial and global context, and the complexity of the relationship between social work and poverty, given the high proportion of its clients who are poor. Poverty may be defined in different ways, bringing different numbers of people into the definition depending upon its reference points.

  The UN Definition of Poverty is set out below. It highlights the wide-ranging effects of poverty, which go beyond their immediate physical consequences, such as hunger and untreated illness.

  Fundamentally, poverty is a denial of choices and opportunities, a violation of human dignity. It means lack of basic capacity to participate effectively in society. It means not having enough to feed and clothe a family, not having a school or clinic to go to, not having the land on which to grow one’s food or a job to earn one’s living, not having access to credit. It means insecurity, powerlessness and exclusion of individuals, households and communities. It means susceptibility to violence, and it often implies living on marginal or fragile environments, without access to clean water or sanitation.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Inequality, Socio-cultural Differentiation and Social Structures in Africa

  Beyond Class

  • Dieter Neubert(Author)
  • 2019(Publication Date)
  • Palgrave Macmillan

    (Publisher)

  We need to ask whether the new insights in the analysis of poverty also apply to the more well-off parts of societies. The concepts developed go well beyond a simple definition of poverty in terms of income and consumption, and add features of multi-dimensionality, a dynamic understanding of poverty, and a context-specific understanding of well-being. Since the 1980s, poverty has been understood as a multi-dimensional problem. Lack of access to education, health services and other basic needs are central elements of poverty. Amartya Sen’s influential work on the concept of entitlements sets an even wider frame. According to him, poverty is visible and measurable only in extreme cases. This has been operationalised by the vulnerability approach. In many cases poverty only occurs in times of crisis when there are no coping capacities (no entitlements) and no capacity for resilience. Poverty must be understood and measured as a dynamic condition that goes far beyond visible chronic poverty. Access to resources that can help to cope with crisis is at least as important as income for defining someone’s social position. The importance of entitlements is also shown in studies of “voices of the poor”. They underline the role of social relations and networks as important security nets. But an important part of Sen’s argument has not entered the realm of development policy. According to Sen, entitlements represent the socio-economic and socio-political structure of a society, and often limit the freedom of people to develop their capabilities. The participatory approach with its studies of “voices of the poor”, and the concept of “buen vivir”, have put non-material elements and culture-specific understandings of poverty and well-being in the focus of research

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Social Work and Poverty

  Attitudes and Actions

  • Monica Dowling(Author)
  • 2019(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  1 The relationship between social work and poverty This chapter defines the concepts of poverty and social work as they will be used throughout the book and traces the past and present connections between poverty and social work. It is suggested that although there is a historical, factual, objective relationship between poverty and social work, there is also a subjective interactive relationship between social workers and those in poverty which is based on professional traditions, the casework model, and social workers' own attitudes and actions. These attitudes and actions are influenced by social workers' training and personal backgrounds and the larger political environment. Relevant to the relationship between poverty and social work, and therefore also included in this chapter are an analysis of the relationship between the income maintenance system and the functions of social services departments, and a summary of the issues concerning social workers as providers of income maintenance and as advocates/advisers on income maintenance matters. A definition of poverty A 'poverty line' which divides those who are poor from those who are not poor could be useful in defining what percentage of the population are poor. However there is a continuing debate about where such a 'poverty line' should be set and to what extent poverty is relative to the society in which it exists (Oppenheim and Harker 1996, Townsend 1979). There is no official UK government 'poverty line' but two sources of government information are Low Income Families statistics and Households below Average Income statistics, both derived from the Family Expenditure Survey. Households below average income (HBAI) statistics are the government measure of low income while 50 per cent of average income is used by CP AG, the European Community and international studies as a measure of poverty

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Economic Inequality and Poverty: International Perspectives

  International Perspectives

  • Lars Osberg(Author)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Summarizing, although welfare is theoretically the best basis for a poverty line definition, in practice both the measurement problems and the essentially subjective nature of welfare cause a new set of problems. To some extent, however, these latter problems are implicitly present in all poverty line definitions, and only made more explicit in poverty line definitions aiming to be a proxy for welfare. Human behavior, as well as the evaluation of one's situation in terms of welfare or utility, varies because of many reasons, not only because of differences in command over resources. Which of these reasons should be considered relevant for the purpose of a poverty definition? However this question is answered, every selection will result in a difference between the population of poor according to the criteria chosen and the population of poor according to their subjective welfare. In order to analyze this difference, it is therefore always advisable to obtain information on both subjective evaluations and objective conditions of households.

  1.4. Does the Choice of Definition Matter?

  In the paragraphs above the advantages and disadvantages of a number of poverty definitions are discussed. If, however, the differences between these poverty definitions in practical research are relatively small, this discussion would be only of theoretical value, without much relevance for poverty research or policy. In this section I will therefore review empirical studies in which the composition and size of the population of poor is compared, using different definitions of poverty.

  The relevance of the choice of money income versus a more comprehensive measure of economic status is demonstrated in work by Garfinkel and Haveman (1977a, 1977b). They compare the composition of the population of poor (both households and individuals) based on the current income poverty line to the composition of the poor based on their index of "earnings capacity."

  According to the current income poverty line, households in which the main breadwinner is black, full-time working, and has a low level of education are underrepresented, as are large families. Older people and farmers, on the other hand, are overrepresented in the population of poor according to the current income poverty line.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book