Concept of Poverty

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Poverty as a measure of low income
The “Basic Needs” approach
Poverty as an inescapable political act
The freedoms approach
Poverty as the lack of wealth
How to measure poverty
Discussion
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Poverty is a widely useful and common concept in many spheres of socioeconomic development. Albeit a universal concept, many people have different conceptions of the term. In fact, Misturelli and Heffernan (2010) say the concept has different clusters of meanings and definitions.

Other researchers believe the evolving nature of poverty contributes to its varied meanings. The discourse analysis of Misturelli and Heffernan (2010) was among the first research studies to document how the evolving nature of poverty gave it different meanings and definitions. Pantazis, Gordon and Levitas (2006) take a pragmatic construction of this argument by arguing that most people cannot define poverty in any way that they like.

The discourse, or subject areas, of these meanings provide the differences. This paper builds on these arguments by reviewing different conceptions of the term.

Poverty as a measure of low income

Since the 1880s, researchers have come up with three main conceptions of the term – “subsistence, basic needs and relative deprivation” (Talbot, Madanipour & Shucksmith 2013). Pantazis, Gordon and Levitas (2006) use the first criterion to define poverty by saying that it is “The Lack of income, access to good quality health, education and housing, and the exposure to poor quality living environments” (p. 30).

They say these attributes affect people’s well-being. In line with the same understanding, Pantazis, Gordon and Levitas (2006) say low income is an important component of poverty because it affects people’s well-being as well. Here, it is important to understand that short spells of low incomes do not necessarily affect people’s well-being.

However, long spells of low incomes are bound to have the reverse effect (ill-being). Although this discussion does not directly contribute to our understanding of poverty, it helps us to understand the views of other researchers who group low-income people as “poverty-stricken” people (Pantazis, Gordon & Levitas 2006).

This is false. In fact, unless the low income has a negative effect on the people affected, it is incorrect to equate low income with poverty. Nonetheless, this is one perception that outlines people’s understanding of the term.

The “Basic Needs” approach

Booth and Rowntree (cited in Pantazis, Gordon & Levitas 2006) are among the first researchers to explore the concept of poverty. They did so by studying the concept in the context of early 19^th century England.

Here, they opposed the commonly held belief that poverty meant the lack of financial resources (only). Instead, they expanded this understanding by saying that poor health, housing, and the lack of education (among other socioeconomic variables) also defined poverty (Pantazis, Gordon & Levitas 2006).

The United Nations (UN) also adopts a similar understanding of poverty by saying that the concept is “a condition characterised by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information” (United Nations Development Programme 2006, p. 5).

The main difference between this definition and other definitions of poverty highlighted in this paper is the broad understanding of the concept. Stated differently, other researchers use a narrow definition of socioeconomic factors (such as the lack of income) to define poverty, while the basic needs approach constructs poverty through a wider realm of factors that affect human well-being.

Poverty as an inescapable political act

Many researchers have often explored the relationship between poverty and politics (United Nations Development Programme 2006). Most of them say that poverty is an inescapably political act. Global institutions, such as the UN, also hold the same view.

For example, the UN has often argued that poverty rarely exists in “politically mature” democracies (such as Europe) (United Nations Development Programme 2006). Conversely, they argue that poor countries, which do not have “politically mature” democracies, report the highest levels of poverty.

This argument further stretches to social and political structures. For example, many researchers believe that poverty is a product of extreme capitalistic societies (Talbot, Madanipour & Shucksmith 2013). This view closely aligns with the Marxist school of thought, but the United Nations Development Programme (2006) defines it as the Anglo-Saxon preoccupation.

Proponents of such views say that capitalistic structures create significant wage differentials that limit people’s growth opportunities (Talbot, Madanipour & Shucksmith 2013). Therefore, people who are born in poverty find it difficult to escape this cycle because of structural limitations (caused by capitalistic systems).

The United Nations Development Programme (2006) expounds on this analysis by saying that political structures (representative of capitalistic societies) need an “industrial reserve army,” which owners of factors of production can use and dispose at their will. Since researchers have different reservations regarding the factuality of this view, its proponents argue that political structures created poverty by relating it to income (Talbot, Madanipour & Shucksmith 2013).

They also say that although poverty existed before the creation of these capitalistic structures, it was mainly limited to life-cycle changes (such as elderly people experiencing the highest rates of poverty) (United Nations Development Programme 2006).

The freedoms approach

Understanding poverty through people’s ability to live freely and valuable lives emerged from critiques of the income approach to poverty. Its proponents believed that reducing poverty to income deprivation was a shallow understanding of the concept (United Nations Development Programme 2006). Instead, they argued that poverty was a broad concept that included people’s liberties and their enjoyment of the same.

For example, the Sen’s capability approach uses the same premise to define poverty (United Nations Development Programme 2006). The UN has also used this approach to construct the human development index (United Nations Development Programme 2006).

This approach rejects income deprivation as the main proxy for understanding poverty. Comparatively, it proposes an alternative approach of constructing poverty as the deprivation of the freedom to live a valuable life.

Poverty as the lack of wealth

Researchers have defined poverty as the lack of wealth (or little wealth). Proponents of this view also define poverty as the inability to consume goods and services (low purchasing power) (Misturelli & Heffernan 2010). Additionally, this definition also includes no (or poor) access to quality services.

The subsistence conception of poverty emerged from Victorian England when nutritionists defined poverty as people’s inability to have an income that could maintain their physical health (United Nations Development Programme 2006). Although people had other needs, such as shelter and clothing, subsistence was the main proxy for defining poverty.

The United Nations Development Programme (2006) says, although this understanding is old, it has influenced scientific dogma for more than ten decades. For example, statistical figures used to describe the social conditions of different countries have often used subsistence measures to do so.

International agencies still use the same measure today. Past British territories used the same measure to rule their colonies. For example, former British authorities used the measure to determine the wages of black people in South Africa (during the apartheid era). They also used the same model to frame development plans in Asian colonies (United Nations Development Programme 2006).

How to measure poverty

Poverty measurement metrics mainly depend on the multiple definitions of the concept. Furthermore, different countries have varying measurements of the concept. For example, some European countries measure poverty by evaluating national statistics regarding the number of people who apply for social welfare support (United Nations Development Programme 2006).

Most of these measurement metrics relate to the construction of poverty as a lack of income. For example, Talbot, Madanipour & Shucksmith (2013) say many European countries use income metrics to define at-risk-populations of poverty. Others define poverty-stricken people as those that earn less than 60% of the national median of disposable income (Talbot, Madanipour & Shucksmith 2013).

Other measures of poverty align with the “basic needs” approach of poverty. However, this analysis is contextual because different parts of the world have different types of basic needs. For example, Europeans may define their basic needs as an annual holiday, quality food, and adequate housing (among other factors) (Vecernik 2004).

Therefore, here, it is difficult to define relative poverty as merely lacking enough resources to survive. In this regard, relative measurements make it difficult for statisticians to compare the rate of poverty across different regions.

Discussion

This paper shows that most definitions of poverty align with the “resource view” (gaining access to resources, or lacking them). This paper has also shown that some researchers define poverty as an inescapable political act. Although mature democracies have low levels of poverty, it is misleading to argue that such democracies do not suffer from poverty at all.

Furthermore, these countries still grapple with inequality challenges, despite their low levels of poverty. In fact, these countries use a relative definition of poverty (Talbot, Madanipour & Shucksmith 2013). An interesting finding about this analysis is that most professionals (“non-poor” people) developed most of the definitions of poverty outlined in this paper. In other words, their definitions of poverty are expressions of their training and educational skills.

In fact, such definitions reflect the power of development professionals to define poverty based on their perceptions. This is an unfair representation of the concept because poor people should have the power to define it.

Conclusion

Based on the findings of this paper, safely, one could say that the definition of poverty depends on who is asking, how people understand it, and the type of audience. However, income is at the centre of the definition because, historically, people have used it to define the concept.

However, based on the varied views and constructs of poverty, and its relation to income, the latter is no less problematic than the concept of poverty itself. Nonetheless, based on an overall assessment of the findings of this paper, correctly, one could say that poverty affects income-deprived people who are unable to gain access to quality life determinants, such as quality food and shelter.

Therefore, a correct (or informed) understanding of poverty cannot merely depend on an abstract understanding of low income as the main proxy. Therefore, to understand the real measurement, or definition, of income, it is crucial to identify a specific income level, beyond which people experience deprivation.

References

Misturelli, F & Heffernan, C 2010, ‘The concept of poverty a synchronic perspective’, Progress in Development Studies, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 35-58.

Pantazis, C, Gordon, D & Levitas, R 2006, Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain, The Policy Press, Bristol.

Talbot, H, Madanipour, A & Shucksmith, M 2013, The Territorial Dimension of Poverty and Social Exclusion in Europe, University of Newcastle, New Castle.

United Nations Development Programme 2006, Poverty in Focus, <https://ipcig.org/pub/IPCPovertyInFocus9.pdf>.

Vecernik, J 2004, ‘Who Is Poor in the Czech Republic? The Changing Structure and Faces of Poverty after 1989’, Czech Sociological Review, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 807–834.

Click Here To Order Now!