The definition of poverty has attracted considerable political and social scientific controversy. However, the debate cannot be dismissed as being merely semantic. The social definition of poverty is crucial, first, because it determines to what extent, if any, governments accept that the problem itself exists, and, second, because it influences what policies, if any, are to be adopted to tackle poverty and, as a consequence, how the poor themselves will be treated.
Three different historical and scientific approaches may be distinguished in the contemporary debate about poverty: subsistence or absolute poverty, basic needs, and relative deprivation (Townsend 1993).
Subsistence or absolute poverty
Subsistence or absolute poverty implies that there is a fixed basic minimum income below which physiological efficiency cannot be maintained. Based on pioneering research by Charles Booth and Seebohm Rowntree at the turn of the nineteenth century, this approach entails the calculation of a poverty line based on the minimum necessities—such as food, housing, clothing, fuel and some household sundries—required to maintain physical efficiency (Rowntree 1901). The policy implications of this approach are that if society can provide an income sufficient to meet subsistence needs, then poverty can be eliminated. It is mainly for this reason that the subsistence approach has found favour with policy makers in industrial countries such as Britain and the USA, and in some Third-World countries such as India (Townsend 1993).
The subsistence approach has been criticized for being too simplistic and inflexible. It ignores the fact that individual needs, even for food, are determined more by social convention than by scientific or expert judgement. Thus, even if it was possible to construct a single measure of the necessities required for physical efficiency, the behaviour of those forced to rely on it would not necessarily conform to the rigid regime dictated by the measure. Inevitably, this measure proposes a style of life for poor people which is significantly different from the rest of society. None the less it has been influential in the determination of social security levels in many countries.
Basic needs
The concept of basic needs encompasses the idea of subsistence needs and has been used principally in discussions about poverty in Third-World countries. Proponents of this approach have argued that it ‘should be placed within a context of a nation’s economic and social development’ (International Labour Office 1976). The basic needs approach comprises two key elements: first, insufficient income to maintain subsistence requirements for food, shelter, clothing and certain household goods, and, second, insufficient essential services such as safe drinking water, sanitation, public transport, health services and education (Townsend 1993). This concept has been operationalized by a number of international organizations such as the ILO, UNESCO and the World Bank.
The idea of basic needs has been criticized on the same grounds as subsistence poverty, both being absolute approaches. In addition, Townsend (1993) has argued that to restrict the human needs of poor people in Third-World countries to what is required for mere physical survival is a form of racism whereby ‘unsophisticated’ peoples are deemed to have lesser needs than those in complex ‘civilizations’. However, the concept of universal basic needs has been revived by Doyal and Gough (1991) who assert, against relativism, that health and autonomy constitute the most basic of human needs and are the same for everyone. They argue that eleven second-order or intermediate needs, which are the same for all cultures, must also be met as they ‘universally and positively’ contribute to physical health and autonomy. These are nutritional food and clean water; protective housing; a non-hazardous work environment; appropriate health care; security in childhood; significant primary relationships; physical security; economic security; appropriate education; and safe birth control and childbearing.
Relative deprivation
The third approach, relative deprivation, maintains that any measure of poverty and, therefore, the numbers of people regarded as being in poverty, can be determined only by reference to the standard of living of the members of a particular society. This measurement is based on the level of income necessary for individuals to participate in the wide range of roles, relationships and consumptions that constitute full membership of the society in which they live. Income is defined in its widest sense to include resources such as assets, housing, company fringe benefits, education, health and other social services. Thus, according to Townsend, who is most closely associated with the development of the relative concept of poverty, individuals and families are in poverty when ‘their resources are so seriously below those commanded by the average individual or family that they are, in effect, excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities’ (Townsend 1979:1). The adoption of the term ‘social exclusion’ by, for example, the European Union in preference to the term ‘poverty’ suggests common acceptance of this broader perspective, if not of Townsend’s precise measure of poverty.
There are two main implications arising from the relative deprivation approach. First, that the eradication of poverty becomes much harder than under subsistence definitions and is dependent on a reduction of inequalities within societies: thus poverty is the other side of the coin to wealth and both are the products of structural inequality. Second, the relative approach points to different standards in different societies according to local customs and practices. However, this divergence should not be exaggerated because there is considerable overlap in the living standards between affluent and relatively poor countries. For example, the most prosperous fifth of the population in relatively poor countries such as Mexico, Malaysia and Turkey are much better off than the poorest fifth in Britain (Townsend 1993).
Early studies of relative poverty were based on incomes relative to national social assistance rates (Townsend and Abel-Smith 1965). More recently, half the average income has been used as a measure of poverty in most European countries. Researchers on poverty, who have tended to agree that a relative definition is the most appropriate (for a defence of the absolutist approach see Sen 1983), have used three different ways to measure it: social consensus approach (Mack and Lansley 1985), based on a common public agreement of what goods and services are deemed to be essential to everyday life; the budget standard approach (Bradshaw 1993), according to which experts make professional judgements as to how much different types of family units need to live on; and the behavioural approach (Townsend 1979), which examines how people actually behave in relation to different income levels.
Conclusion
While there are problems associated with each of these methods, there is no doubt about the renewed intensity of the search for an objective measure of poverty. However, it is important that the academic debate does not obscure the real problems: an increase in poverty within and between countries, and an increase in inequality which is creating a sharper divide between rich and poor people and rich and poor nations. At the same time, policy makers in some of the developed countries are more concerned to eliminate the problem of ‘the poor’, or the strata sometimes referred to as ‘the underclass’, rather than to prevent or eliminate poverty.
The whole issue of poverty—definition, extent, meaning and policy response is a contested terrain in which policy makers can select the scientific definition of poverty and theory about causation to suit their policy intentions. When poverty is defined in absolutist terms, the policy response is likely to be a minimal and selective one: conditional welfare for the poorest. When poverty is defined in terms of relative deprivation, the policy response required is directed at significant change in the social structure, and particularly in the distribution of resources: distributional justice for all citizens.
Alan Walker
University of Sheffield
Carol Walker
Sheffield Hallam University
References
Abel-Smith, B. and Townsend, P. (1965) The Poor and the Poorest, London.
Bradshaw, J. (1993) Household Budgets and living Standards, York.
Doyal, L. and Gough, I. (1991) A Theory of Human Needs, Basingstoke.
International Labour Office (1976) Employment Growth and Basic Needs: A One-World Problem, Geneva.
Mack, J. and Lansley, S. (1985) Poor Britain, London.
Rowntree, B.S. (1901) Poverty: A Study of Town Life, London.
Sen, A. (1983) ‘Poor relatively speaking’, Oxford Economic Papers 35.
Townsend, P. (1979) Poverty in the United Kingdom, Harmondsworth.
(1993) The International Analysis of Poverty, Hemel Hempstead.
Further reading
Debate between A.Sen and P.Townsend, reprinted in P. Townsend (1993) The International Analysis of Poverty, Hemel Hempstead.
Walker, A. and Walker, C. (eds) (1987) The Growing Divide: A Social Audit 1979–87, London.
Wilson, W.J. (1987) The Truly Disadvantaged, Chicago.
