Connection Between Poverty And Social Inequality
Introduction
Poverty can be defined in terms of the relationship between a person’s income or resources and that which is required for a healthy life. The two types of poverty discussed in this report are absolute and relative poverty. As reported by the United Nations absolute poverty is a circumstance characterised by harsh deprivation of simple human requirements, including clean water, food, sanitation facilities, well-being, housing, education and information. It relies on income as well as access to facilities. Previous research from early sociologists such as Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) to believed that the poor are undeserving, they have only themselves to blame for their circumstances, they were simply slackers and scrounger. Modern sociologists like David Marshland (1989) still have similar views and believes nothing should be done to help the people in poverty because as long as help is given and received from the state, the poor will remain lazy and jobless. The poor were continuously blamed until sociologist Booth (1886) produced a report called Life and Labour of the People of London.
After conducting interviews with every social class, he found 30% of people were living in poverty, these findings supported the view the poor weren’t to blame for their situations. Likewise, Rowntree (1899) conducted research in York, following Booth’s methodology of house to house visits and observations. A report by Rowntree was produced called Poverty, a Study of Town Life and concluded 30% of the people living in York lived in poverty. 21 shillings was required per week to be above the ‘poverty line’. He stated that people couldn’t help being poor and large families were the main cause of poverty. It was almost impossible for individuals to pull themselves out of poverty by themselves due to their circumstances.
The perception of absolute poverty isn’t concerned with the broader quality of life matters nor with the complete level of inequality in society. Therefore the concept fails to identify that individuals have vital cultural and social needs. This and similar criticisms led to the growth of the concept of relative poverty.
According to Townsend (1979), Relative poverty is lacking resources to obtain a healthy diet, not being able to join in activities and have the living conditions and services which are expected or at least generally encouraged or approved in their societies. The relative poverty line in the UK is currently set at household income of less than 60% of median income after tax and benefits and the income is adjusted to household size. Other measurements could be used to link income and inequality such as the Gini coefficient and the Palm Ratio.
Social inequality
Townsend et al. (1987) came up with the Townsend deprivation index, a way of measuring material deprivation within a population, it incorporates four variables, Unemployment (aged 16 and over who are economically active) Non-car ownership (as a percentage of all households); Non-home ownership (as a percentage of all households); and Household overcrowding.
All the above variables were economically measured by demographics of a population and calculations were collected and worked out against a certain standard that enabled Townsend to get an index score and from here qualified him to show the degree of deprivation. It can be argued that there are four reasons that poverty needs to be measured. Firstly if highlights the plight of poorest. So unless there is an agenda it would mean the poor people in poverty would be forgotten. Next once the people in poverty have been identified, only then can target interventions begin with the focus on reducing or alleviating poverty. Thirdly it needs to be monitored and projects and policy interventions need evaluation, to see if they are worthwhile and working. Lastly, the effectiveness of all bodies and agencies need to be evaluated because they are the ones putting n objectives which should help the poor.
It can be argued the perception of relative poverty has had its critics, saying it is thwarted as it purely measures inequality and perhaps it should measure poverty. This is because it lacks accurate and specific meaning. It is argued that the concept of ‘absolute poverty’ highlights those that are in real need and for the critics, this can be done for those in ‘relative poverty’ when they level of it keeps growing with increasing standards of living. “Stratification describes the way in which different groups of people are placed within society. The status of people is often determined by how society is stratified”. Social class is a form of stratification found in industrial societies. It can be defined as broad groups of people who share similar economic situations (income occupation and ownership of wealth).
A way in which we measure class is by the Registrar General’s classification, it was first introduced in the UK census (1911), which allocated individuals to different social classes, professional occupations, managerial and Technical, occupations, skilled occupations, manual, partly-skilled occupations and unskilled occupations. Moving up and down these classes is difficult. Now we don’t necessarily have these classes as they have merged. So in comparison to today, it’s measured by the people we associate with. Steven et al. (2011) came up with The Great British class calculator survey to measure class, a series of questions are asked such as household income, car and land ownership, people you associate with and the activities you do for leisure. The old class system was out of date and no longer reflects current professions or lifestyles. Social mobility refers to the movement of individuals or groups through a system of social hierarchy there are 4 types of movements, horizontal mobility (change in occupation but not social class) vertical mobility, (change in position and social class, can be upward or downward) Intragenerational mobility (social mobility that takes place during ones lifespan) intergenerational mobility (social mobility between generations).
Obstacles to achieving social mobility
The risk of poverty is higher for some social groups than others. For example, children, women and older people are among the high-risk groups. In particular, those who are disadvantaged or discriminated against in other aspects of life have an increased chance of being poor. Plat (2013) argues that children not only face a higher risk of poverty but they’re particularly vulnerable to its negative consequences, especially when these persist over time. Effects are both long term and have shown to emerge early in life, they tend to have worse health than those who do not, and as adults, they can afford the time to go to university, as they have to work more hours just to get by.
Effects of poverty on social inequality
Individuals who have unequal chances in life often live in poverty, and individuals who suffer in poverty might be treated unequally. Dave and Moore claim that inequality in income and wealth are necessary to maintain society. They argued that in order to maintain society some positions are more functionally important than others. Those who do have the ability to do these jobs must be motivated and encouraged to undertake the lengthy training often required for these important positions with the promise of future high rewards (income and wealth). Therefore, a system of unequal rewards is required so that the most deserving get into important social positions. This would provide detailed measures of the different types of economic capital. The existence of poverty stabilizes society as it ensures the most undesirable jobs are performed, poverty forces people to complete undesirable jobs, it creates jobs in a range of occupations for those who deal with the effects of poverty.
Trapped in poverty
However, research has been done to prove that this statement is untrue for example Coates and Silburn (1970) in a study they emphasised the circumstances in which the poor are trapped, and how these circumstances combine to form a web which is impossible to escape from this is called the cycle of deprivation. In fact, the majority of them are hard-working families who were forced into poverty by circumstances beyond their control, this is called the cycle of deprivation. This concept hypothesises that ‘family pathology’ is the main mechanism for spreading social deprivation intergenerationally, and that this clarifies the persistence of bad housing, low education accomplishment, and joblessness in poorer households and society.
