Poverty in the UK Essay

In 1886, Charles Booth investigated the limit of pauperism in capital of the United Kingdom. His was the number 1 systematic sociological schooling of meagreness in the UK. The results, presented in 1902-3, documented the alert and moulding condition of the London wretched. Adopting a sexual intercourse approach to indigence which was defined as the inability to meet the usual standard of life Booth estimated that the level at which meagerness set in for a family of two adults and three children was 21 shillings per week (? 1. 05 today). Booth estimated that 30.7 per penny of Londons perfect population were in impoverishment. Around the same meter, adopting an unassailable perspective on meagerness, Seebohm R decl atomic number 18tree investigated the state of the hapless in the city of York in 1899. He highlighted the tokenish standard of living which fulfilled deals biological call for for food, water, clothing and shelter. This is likewise referred to as t he subsistence level. Rowntree subsequently drew up a list of those borderline personal and house necessities required for survival and accomplished two categories of privation.Primary poverty is when the person is unable to acquire the minimum necessitates, secondary poverty is when a portion of the persons impart earnings is absorbed by new(prenominal) useful or inefficient exp breakiture such that it is not contingent to chief(prenominal)tain the minimum standard. meagreness can be defined in several ways, Booth took a relative approach and Rowntree took an absolute approach. In the post-war era, there has been a more(prenominal)(prenominal) pronounced shift from viewing poverty as predominantly a monetary and economic phenomenon to regarding and acknowledging its more qualitative and subjective aspects.By the end of the 1950s, the period of rationing and shortages was over and, with almost full employment, the UK seemed never to contain had it so good. Yet, by the 1960s, a number of affectionate insurance academics close to the Labour Party (such as Tawney and Townsend) raised the issue of the chronic human race of poverty in a period of greater prosperity. Townsend questioned absolute interpretations of poverty (such as those of Rowntree) which were forbiddendated and failed to take account of the problems some peck had in fully participating in society.Townsends definitive pass water on poverty in the UK in 1979 (Townsend 1992) went beyond an absolute definition based on physical needs, to view poverty in relative to a generally accepted standard of living, in a detail society, at a particular time. Individuals can be said to be in poverty when they deprivation the resources to obtain the types of diet, go in in the activities and take up the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or at least astray encouraged and approved, in the societies which they belong.(p. 31) Townsend suggested a definition that was closer i n melody to the concept of citizenship poverty constituted a drop of resources that would enable a person to able to inscribe in the normal expectations and tradition of a society. This kind of definition also would imply that the indicators of poverty can falsify over time in order to embrace changes in society. In the 1960s, Townsend used the example of not cosmos able to afford a proper Sunday lunch as an indicator of poverty.The idea of a Sunday roast meal might not be so relevant today because of changes in family life and the way people meet together, and therefore is not so much an integral aspect of what people can be expected to do normally. On the other hand, Townsends indicator of giving presents to near members of the family for birthdays or Christmas still holds. In his 1979 operation, Townsend identify twelve items he believed were be relevant to the whole population, and gave each household surveyed a score on a deprivation index. The higher the score, the mo re deprived was the household. Townsend calculated that 22.9 per cent of the population fell on a lower floor the threshold of deprivation (Giddens 2006). When talking about poverty, enquiryers usually base their work on measures of deprivation rather than the identification of poverty by itself. The existence of deprivation is taken as a surrogate for the existence of poverty. tidy sum are said to be deprived materially and tenderly if they lack the material standards (diet, housing ad clothing) and the services and amenities (recreational, educational, environmental, social) which would allow them to participate in commonly accepted roles and relationship within society.The compass of poverty is complex, embracing the unemployed, those on low pay or in unassured work, the sick, the elderly, and the unskilled. Some minority ethnic bases also get down into the picture, for example, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in the UK cast off, in general, high rates of poverty compared to o ther groups (Giddens 2006). Absolute poverty assumes that it is possible to define a minimum standard of living based on a persons biological needs for food, water, clothing and shelter. The furiousness is on underlying physical needs and not on broader social and cultural needs.Rowntrees studies of poverty in York in 1901, 1936, and 1951 used such an approach to poverty. But another way of viewing poverty is of relative poverty, which goes beyond biological needs, and is not simply about a lack of money but also about exclusion form the customs of society. Relative poverty is about social exclusion imposed by an inadequate income. Social exclusion is a broader concept than poverty comprehend not only low material means but the inability to participate effectively in economic, social, political and cultural life, implying alienation and outgo from the mainstream society (Giddens 2006).Social exclusion may both be a precursor to poverty and an important consequence of it. In 198 4, Mack and Lansley study established that the poverty threshold covered not only the basic essentials for survival (such as food and shelter) but also the ability to participate in society and play a social role for the first time ever, a majority of people see the necessities of life in Britain in the 1980s as covering a wide contrive of goods and activities, and people judge a minimum standard of living on socially established criteria and not just the criteria of survival or subsistence.(Mack & Lansley 1985 55) In the 1980s, the discussion of poverty turned increasingly to the feeling of polarisation and to the shrinking portion of the UK cake held by the miserableest. pauperisation and riches are not simply the bottom and top of the income distribution, they are polarised social conditions (Scott 1994). Income polarisation was also compounded by a number of policy measure introduced in the 1980s, such as a reduction in the level of income appraise for high earners and i ncreasing use of indirect taxes.Academics showed that polarisation and social disparities were ripening between those who had benefited from the measures of the successive Thatcher administrations and those who had lost out, while the Thatcher government as the time tried to deny the excesses of Thatcherism. According to an analysis of the Child Poverty run Group, in the regime of Margaret Thatcher, more than 63 billion has been transferred in subsidies from the poor to the rich (Oppenheim and Harker 1996)Research in the 1990s on the distribution of wealth and poverty in the UK has been produced under a Joseph Rowntree Foundation research initiative. This research highlighted that the number of people living in households with under half the case average income fell between the early 1960s and 1970s from fiver cardinal to three jillion, but then rose to eleven million in 1991, to a point where one in five households were living on under half the national average income. The nu mber of undivideds under 60 living in households without paid work has more than treble from 4.1. million, or 8 per cent, in 1979, to 9. 4 million, or 19 per cent by the mid 1990s.This has been accompanied by a widening initiative in the incomes of households in paid work and those out of paid work. In 1997, 12 million people in the UK (almost 25% of the population) lived below the poverty line, defined as under half the average wage, and two out of five children were born poor. Today, according to OECD (Organisation for Economic cooperation and Development), Britain has one of the worst poverty records in the developed world (Giddens 2006).According to the latest available statistics, more or less 1 in 4 people in the UK amounting to 13 million people live in poverty. This includes nearly 4 million children signifying a shocking 1 in 3 ratio (Oxfam GB 2003). The explanations that have been offered as causes of poverty fall under two categories, individualistic theories and geomorphologic theories. Here we will focus on the former. Individualistic theories identify the main causes of poverty within individuals themselves. Social and cultural factors are not solely discounted, but more emphasis is place on inappropirated individual doingss. there are three main types of individualistic theories. Orthodox economic conjecture This theory proposes that poverty can be explained by the economic deficiency of the individual . Harold Lydall argues that the general abilities of men in the crowd force pick up the distribution of incomes. These abilities are assumed to be created by genetic, environmental and educational factors. To reduce poverty, policies need to target individuals own value systems, to develop their own personal qualities in a manner that makes them more capable and efficient.The individual is poor because he has not maximised his true potential drop in the labour market. Minority group theory Minority group theory initiate from the ear liest studies of poverty based on the findings of Booth and Rowntree. These pioneering social scientists did not attempt to discover the causes of poverty, merely the characteristics of certain groups of poor people. Minority group theory has largely constructed its explanation for poverty through examining the characteristics of the poor for example, being old, being married with dependent children.Going beyond such demographic indicators, the theory implicates alleged faulty characteristics. The classification of ar-risk groups has prompted policy makers to implement a benefit system to ensure that the most basic of needs are met, without encouraging idleness or apathy. The poverty policies of successive governments have ofttimes informed by minority group theory. Subculture of poverty theory Subculture of poverty theory is derived form a number of anthropological and sociological studies, particularly, the work of Oscar Lewis.It was Lewis who in 1959 introduced the term the cult ure of poverty in an effort to overhaul an analogy between the Mexican lower class families and those in other parts of the world. He attempted to explain the phenomenon of the persistence of poverty in different countries. The basic idea has its roots in the Chicago teach of Sociology and the work of Robert E. Park. According to Park the patterns of the neighbourhood, and the slum in particular, once they come into being, take on a life of their own and are to a great extent self-generating and self-perpetuating.A sociological process cognise as labeling also underpins this phenomenon. Labelling somebody negatively may also lead to change magnitude surveillance or segregation from the wider community which further increases (and even creates) the predicted behaviour (Fulcher and Scott 2001). These processes, whereby people tend to live up to the expectation of others are known to be self-fulfilling. Oscar Lewis implies a similar understanding in his formulation of the notion of the culture of poverty. Lewis claimed that poverty affected the very personality of slum dwellers.The poor tend to be at once apathetic yet alienated, slaphappy yet miserable. Other negative characteristics that mark the psychological orientation of poor people include laziness, being unambitious, being disorganised, and fatalistic. To fight poverty at its roots, such psychological tendencies need to be gradually eroded, with more cocksure attitudes taking their place. Much work also needs to be through with(p) on making the destitute people more attractive to their potential employers, in terms of skills and educational qualifications.Substantial and sustained reductions in poverty depend on raising the level of qualifications among older teenagers and young adults in the bottom quarter of educational achievement. Lack of progress here is a major concern for longer term progress on cut poverty. (Joseph Rowntree Foundation 2006)ReferencesGiddens, A. (2006). Sociology. Cambridge Polity Press Fulcher, J. & Scott J. (2001). Sociology. Oxford Oxford University Press Joseph Rowntree Foundation. (2006). Monitoring poverty and social exclusion in the UK 2006. Retrieved 20 March 2007 from http//www.poverty. org. uk/reports/mpse%202006%20findings. pdf Mack, J. & Lansley, S. (1985). Poor Britain. London Unwin Hyman Oppenheim,C. & Harker, L. (1996). Poverty the Facts, 3rd ed. London Child Poverty Action Oxfam GB. (2003). The facts about poverty in the UK. Retrieved 20 March 2007 from http//www. oxfamgb. org/ukpp/poverty/thefacts. htm Scott, J. (1994). Poverty and Wealth Citizenship, neediness and Privilege (Longman Sociology Series). London Longman Group United Kingdom Townsend, P. (1992). Poverty in the UK. Berkeley University of California Press