The concept of poverty and its socio-economic disadvantages

Poverty remains a contested issue in the UK, with varying views on its definition and prevalence. Some Conservative politicians argue that poverty does not exist in the country, while groups like the Low Pay Unit (LPU) and the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) highlight it as a significant social problem. Regardless of debates, poverty leads to multiple challenges that affect individuals and society.

Key disadvantages associated with poverty

• Research by Wilkinson and Pickett (2014) - This demonstrates that poverty, no matter how it is defined, results in various socio-economic issues. These occur because limited resources restrict access to basic needs and opportunities, amplifying inequalities.

• Health impacts - Poor diet and weak immune systems increase illness, disability, and lower life expectancy.

• Social and emotional effects - High divorce rates, depression, and a disproportionate number of suicides arise from ongoing stress and instability.

• Educational and economic barriers - Low educational achievement and debt limit future prospects, while poor housing adds to daily hardships.

These disadvantages show how poverty creates a cycle of deprivation, particularly linked to social class, where lower-income groups face greater risks.

Definitions and approaches to absolute poverty

Sociologists use two main approaches to define and measure poverty: absolute and relative. These differ in how they assess what constitutes poverty, influencing how we understand its extent in society. We start with absolute poverty, as it focuses on basic survival needs before considering broader social contexts.

Absolute poverty

Absolute poverty refers to lacking the essentials required for a healthy standard of living, such as food, water, and shelter. This approach views poverty as a fixed state based on minimum physical requirements.

Key features of absolute poverty:

• Focus on essentials - It defines poverty as insufficient resources for adequate nutrition, clothing, housing, and fuel. For example, in 2018, this included homeless individuals, those relying on foodbanks, or pensioners choosing between food and heating.
• Measurement challenges - Determining what counts as 'essential' is complex, as experts often disagree on costs and necessities.

Criticisms of the absolute poverty approach:

• Ignores changing standards - What is seen as poverty evolves; items once considered luxuries (like certain technologies) may become necessities as societal norms shift.
• Overlooks social needs - It only addresses physical survival, neglecting aspects like participating in social activities, buying gifts for children, or affording holidays, which are important for social inclusion.

This approach provides a baseline for identifying severe deprivation but fails to capture how poverty feels relative to others in society.

Definitions and approaches to relative poverty

Building on absolute poverty, the relative approach considers poverty in the context of societal norms.

Relative poverty

Relative poverty is the condition where people lack the minimum income needed to maintain the average standard of living that most in a society take for granted. This makes poverty dynamic, changing as societies become more affluent.

Key features of relative poverty:

• Tied to societal expectations - It measures poverty against current living standards. For instance, central heating, colour televisions, mobile phones, and home computers, once luxuries, are now common, so lacking them could indicate poverty.
• Emphasis on moderate living - If individuals or families cannot achieve a standard enjoyed by the majority, they are considered poor, highlighting exclusion from normal activities.

Criticisms of the relative poverty approach:

• Subjective and changeable - Conservative politicians and New Right sociologists argue it confuses inequality with poverty, as social necessities vary and are hard to define consistently.
• Difficult to eradicate - Since expectations rise with affluence, relative poverty persists, making it challenging to eliminate through policy.

This approach better reflects social inequalities but sparks debate over what truly counts as a necessity.

Government measurement using Households Below Average Income (HBAI)

To measure low incomes without directly labelling it as poverty, the UK government uses the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) approach. This is a variation of relative poverty measurement, defining low income as below 60 per cent of the median income (the midpoint where half of households earn more and half earn less). As average incomes rise, the HBAI threshold adjusts accordingly.

How HBAI works

• Income focus - It identifies households with incomes insufficient to meet basic needs, avoiding the term 'poverty' to emphasise economic status.
• Linked indicators - Eligibility for free school meals (FSM) is based on HBAI and serves as a proxy for poverty. Research by the Sutton Trust shows FSM children are less likely to achieve five or more GCSE grades 5–9 compared to non-FSM peers.

Criticisms of HBAI

• Arbitrary threshold - The 60 per cent cut-off is seen as random; Conservatives argue it is too high, while liberals say it is too low.
• Broader evidence of issues - The Trussell Trust reported 5.1 million people in food poverty in 2017, unable to afford a healthy diet, linked to austerity cuts in welfare benefits from 2010–2015, which increased foodbank usage since 2008.

HBAI provides a standardised government metric but is criticised for not fully capturing the lived experience of poverty.

The consensual measure of poverty and key studies

A variation of relative poverty is the consensual measure, which defines poverty based on public agreement about necessities. This approach, pioneered by Mack and Lansley for the CPAG, involves surveying people to build a 'deprivation index' of essential items.

How the consensual measure works

• Building consensus - Surveys ask large samples what items or activities are customary, socially approved, and vital. Items are deemed necessities if over 50 per cent agree, such as a damp-free home, daily fresh fruit and vegetables, or a warm waterproof coat.
• Assessing deprivation - Respondents report what they lack, distinguishing between choice and affordability. Poverty is typically defined as lacking a set number of necessities (e.g., two or more).

This method makes poverty measurement more democratic, reflecting societal views rather than expert opinion alone.

Key studies using the consensual measure

Several studies have applied this approach to estimate poverty levels in the UK.

Breadline Britain survey (Mack and Lansley, 1993):

• Method - Surveyed people on necessities, creating a deprivation index. Poverty was defined as lacking three or more necessities due to affordability.
• Results - Estimated 11 million people lived in poverty in 1990, up from 7.5 million in 1983.
• Evaluation - Highlighted rising poverty but was limited by its threshold choice and focus on material deprivation.

Poverty and social exclusion survey (Gordon et al., 2000):

• Method - Similar consensual approach, but set the poverty line at lacking two or more necessities from the deprivation index.
• Results - Found 24 per cent of the UK population (approximately 14 million people) were poor.
• Evaluation - Provided a broader view of exclusion but faced criticism for potentially overestimating by using a lower threshold; it effectively captured how poverty evolves with social norms.

These studies illustrate how consensual measures adapt to changing societies, offering insights into poverty's scale and helping inform policy debates.