Sociological Explanations for the Existence and Persistence of Poverty

Sociological Explanations for the Existence and Persistence of Poverty

Dependency based Explanations
These sorts of explanations argue that the poor are in some way, the cause of their own poverty. At their most extreme, they suggest that the welfare system in Britain actually makes people dependant on it by providing an attractive alternative to work.

Different approaches exist, based on:
The dependency culture
The culture of poverty
The underclass

The Dependant Individual
This idea was developed by Marsland (1996), who argued that the state undermined an individuals willingness to work by offering generous welfare benefits, and therefore reducing the pressure on people to work to provide. This resulted in a high level of dependence on the state. He also believed that generous state welfare benefits undermine the work of other welfare agencies for example the family, community and voluntary organisations, which all allow the poor to help themselves and each other, rather than becoming developing a dependency culture which is exactly what the state has created.

The Culture of Poverty
This idea was originally suggested by Oscar Lewis in his study of poor people in Mexico. Lewis argued that poor people in a class-stratified and high individualistic society were likely to develop a set of cultural values that trapped them in their poverty. It is important to stress the ideas of class and individualism, for Lewis is not arguing that these people are necessary deficient, he believes they are caught in a society that really does put barriers in their paths – but that the poor themselves help ensure that they are trapped by developing a set of values that prevent them from breaking out of poverty. These cultural values include a sense of fatalism and acceptance of their poverty, an inability to think long term and a desire for immediate enjoyment.

Critics of this approach h argue that there is no such thing as a culture of poverty – rather, such cultural values are a perfectly rational reaction to the conditions of hopelessness. In the USA, the poorest groups really are excluded, and they are unlikely to be allowed to break out of their poverty. In such a situation the poor may feel that there is no point in planning long term.

The Question of the Underclass
The concept of the underclass has entered everyday speech to describe those living at the margins of society, largely reliant on state benefits to make ends meet. However, the concept is rejected by many sociologists due to its negative and sometimes politically charge connotations. Members of the political right such as Charles Murray in the US have focused on the cultural deficiencies of the so called underclass, blaming them for their situation, and accusing them of relying on benefits and even manipulating their own circumstances to increase the amount they can claim from the state.

Sometimes it is also argued they supplement their income through petty crime, or compensate for deprivation through excessive drug and alcohol abuse. Murray has focused on a black underclass which, he alledges is to be found in the most American cities. Similar points have been made about members of non-working groups in deprived areas of Britain (Dennis and Erdos)

A Matter of Choice?
Many New Right commentators (e.g. Saunders) suggest that a large number of the poor see poverty as a choice, a way of life preferable to work. Young mothers are often cited as examples of this – for example by having a child in order to secure a flat that will be paid for by the state.

Roberts (2001) notes that it is difficult to see one culture underpinning an underclass with a common commitment to values that stress dependency, criminality and immorality. He notes that the long term out of work and the recurrently unemployed are a variety of distinct groups with very different reasons for their prolonged or repeated unemployment. For example there are displaced workers who are nearing the normal retirement age. Then there are lone parents. Then there are convicted repeat offenders and then there are people with chronic disabilities.

Various studies such as those by Morris (1993) and Gallie (1994) have examined the extent to which the poor possess cultural differences that may account for their situation. They find little evidence of an underclass culture and, if anything, find that the most disadvantaged groups have greater commitment to the concept of work than many other groups. Research also shows that the majority of lone parents would like a stable relationship; and there is no evidence of an automatic overlap between lone-parent families and crime.

Rather than blaming cultural deficiencies of the poor, critics of the underclass thesis prefer to use the concept of social exclusion to explain poverty. Social exclusion can take many forms, the accumulated effects of which can lead to extreme poverty. Consider the current refugee ‘crisis’ concerning Eastern European immigrants to Britain. These people are excluded from gaining anything but casual low paid work, they may be ineligible for state benefits, they have language barriers to content with and may also be socially excluded due to intolerant attitudes and racism.

It is perhaps understandable that social exclusion may build resentment which can lead to other social ills such as crime or increased suicide rates. Young (1999) suggests that crime rates may be reflecting the fact that a growing number of people do not feel valued or feel they have an investment in the societies in which they live.

The Cycle of Deprivation (in between Cultural and Structural Explanations)
Rutter and Madge found that a variety of factors may create cycles of disadvantage. For example children from poor backgrounds were more likely to underachieve at school, become unemployed or end up in unskilled, low paid jobs, be convicted of juvenile offenses and suffer from certain types of psychiatric disorder. Rutter and Madge acknowledge that some of these disadvantages may be the result of children from low income families being labelled as a problem. However, they conclude that there is some evidence that cycle’s of disadvantage do exists, that they are cause in part by poverty and that to some extent they are a cause of poverty.

Exclusion-Based Explanations (Structural)
Exclusion-based explanations argue that the poor are poor because they are prevented from achieving a reasonable standard of living by the actions of the more powerful in society.

This approach stresses difference in power between the various groups in society. Those who have least power – the disabled, older people, women, ethnic minorities and of course children – have significantly higher chances of living in poverty. Within this approach we can distinguish strands

1. Poverty, powerlessness and the labour market
In all societies the least powerful groups are the most likely to lose out economically and socially, and they will form the bulk of the poor. Indeed poverty and powerlessness go hand in hand. The powerlessness includes women, lone parents (usually women), the very young and the very old, as well as those with disabilities. When these powerless groups do get employment it is likely to be in short term, low paid, temporary and possibly ‘unofficial’ work. For many supporters of the welfare state, it is these groups who deserve help because they are blameless victims of the economic system.

Polly Toynbee spent a year living and working on minimum wage and argues that this is simply not enough to remain above the poverty line. Her experience backed up by statistics which show those in low paid yet full time jobs are still the largest single group of the poor. She argues that the minimum wage is not enough and people working in areas of low pay are subject to difficulties other groups do not face e.g. having to clock off, not be paid when there are few customers or not much work, travel long distances without travel costs for interviews and small jobs and paying the highest interest on loans or for services since they cannot assess the best deals. Toynbee believes that the labour market itself is a cause of poverty as even those in work still fall into poverty.

2. Citizenship and exclusion
Field (1989) has developed this argument and linked it to the idea of citizenship. Field argues that 3 groups in society have, over the last 20 years been excluded from the rights citizens should enjoy, including the right to a decent standard of living. these are:
The Long term unemployed
Lone parent families
Those on state benefits

Together these groups compromise what he calls the underclass. Field argues that these groups have been particularly hit by government policies which have increased the gap between the rich and poor; by increases in the core number of long term unemployed and finally by an increasing tendency to stigmatise and blame the poor for their poverty, rather than look at wider economic and social factors. Once again the answer to the problem of poverty lies in a better organised and comprehensive welfare state.

3. Poverty and Capitalism: the economic system approach
The final and most radical explanation for poverty is provided by those in the Marxist tradition. They see poverty as an inevitable outcome of the capitalist system. According to Marxist theory the economy is owned and run by a small ruling class who exploit the majority of the population who work for them. poverty emerges from 3 main causes:
The wealth of the ruling class is created from paying the lowest possible wages to people – because it is the profits that produce the wealth.
The poor act as a warning – having a group in poverty provides a direct warning to the rest of the workforce of what could happen to them is they don’t work hard
Poor people provide a starting point against which other workers can measure their own income (rather than the income of members of the ruling class).

For Marxists, the welfare state is a means of hiding exploitation and it is used by the rich and powerful to provide just enough in the way of health care and income support benefits to prevent a serious challenge to their authority.

4. The inadequacies of the welfare state
Le Grand argues that the higher socio-economic groups receive more in terms of welfare and services, so that the redistribution of resources that the welfare state is supposed to facilitate does not in fact occur. For example the higher socio-economic groups are more likely to travel further and have more cars therefore roads and public transport is disproportionately used by these groups. In education the lower socio-economic groups leave school earlier and therefore have less spent on them per head than higher classes e.g. in higher and further education. In the NHS there are also discrepancies since the lower socio-economic groups have more ill health and therefore a greater need for services, yet they are entitled to no more services than the higher groups, whose mortality rates are far lower.