Reference List

Reference List

oxford dictionaries. (2012). definition of poverty. Available: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/poverty. Last accessed 1st Nov 2012.

encyclo. (2012). social policy. Available: http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/social%20policy. Last accessed 1st Nov 2012.

bbc. (2012). The Five Giants. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/higher/history/labour/five/revision/1/. Last accessed 1st Nov 2012.

bbc. (2012). Fact File: Beveridge Report. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/timeline/factfiles/nonflash/a1143578.shtml. Last accessed 1st Nov 2012.

Spiker, P.. (2010). Social Need. Available: http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/introduction/needf.htm. Last accessed 2nd Nov 2012.

s-cool. (2011). Sociology Welfare Revision: Philosophies of Welfare. Available: http://www.s-cool.co.uk/a-level/sociology/welfare/revise-it/social-policy-philosophies-of-welfare. Last accessed 2nd Nov 2012.

n/a. (2010). The Sociological Perspective. Available: http://wps.pearsoned.ca/ca_ph_macionis_sociology_6/73/18922/4844113.cw/index.html. Last accessed 3rd Nov 2012.

sociology.org. (2010). The existence and persistence of poverty. Available: 7 http://www.sociology.org.uk/AS_poverty_welfare.pdf. Last accessed 3rd Nov 2012.

Haralambos and Holburn (2004). Sociology: Themes and Perspectives. 6th ed. London: HarperCollins. 284-285.

Jepson,P. (2011). Poverty and Social Exclusion. Available: http://www.peterjepson.com/law/Citizen/CZS5%20Poverty%20and%20Social%20Exclusion%201.pdf. Last accessed 3rd Nov 2012.

Murray.C (2001). Underclass +10. Wiltshire: Cromwell Press. p1-5.

Bartoletti, I.. (2012). Feminism must be put at the heart of welfare state reform. Available: http://www.nextleft.org/2012/01/feminism-must-be-put-at-heart-of.html. Last accessed 4th Nov 2012.

Peter Kenway (2008). Addressing in-work poverty. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. p.1-30.

Oxfam (2010). A Gender Perspective on 21st Century Welfare Reform: Oxfam. p.1-15.

Conclusion

In conclusion, since Beveridge’s ‘five giants’, poverty has developed spectacularly. Although Labour’s Reforms in 1945 may have made a start on tackling the issues causing of poverty, these issues are still present today and are worse than ever before.
The three theories within this essay have contrasting viewpoints as to the causes of poverty, the issues with the welfare state and the solution to these issues. Firstly, the New Right approach argues that single parenthood is a significant cause of poverty today and acts as a drain on the welfare system. The New Right approach also criticises the number of unemployed young people today. The solution, they argue, is a cut in universal benefits and the introduction of means tested benefits. This, they suggest, would divide the ‘deserving poor’ from those who are simply lazy. The Underclass and Underclass +10 studies have reinforced the New Right viewpoint. The study emphasises that the poor themselves are to blame for the situation and not the government. The Social Democratic Approach, however, does blame capitalist society, rather than the individual, for poverty. The approach suggests that the government should redistribute income, provide opportunities for the under-privileged and support the weak. Furthermore, Social Democratic's stress the importance welfare and universal benefits. The study, ‘Addressing In-work Poverty’, reinforces this argument, showing the strong correlation between those in low-paid employment and those living in poverty. Finally, Feminism stresses that women are underprivileged within society compared to men. Moreover, they stress that caring responsibilities and low-paid employment hold women back from earning high wages. The study, A Gender Perspective on 21^st Century Welfare Reforms, reiterates the feminist arguments. The study argues that making a payment of benefits to one single receiver within the home would impact on women negatively.

Feminism

Feminist theory stress that women are underprivileged within society compared to men. Moreover, men are favoured in society which impacts largely on women’s lives. As a movement, feminism wishes to have women living on equal terms with men. However, some radical feminists take this idea further (pearsons, 2010).

In 2010, 17.2 million adult women were poor, compared to 12.6 million adult men. This suggests huge inequalities within today’s society (Bartelli,I 2012).Feminists suggest that recent changes in welfare have resulted in the feminisation of poverty. Increasing numbers of unwanted pregnancies, separations and divorces have resulted in a high percentage of lone-parent families, usually headed by women. As well as children, a significant amount of women may have other caring responsibilities such as elderly family members. These responsibilities may result in having to take low-paid, part-time employment. Furthermore, in this area of work women will have less chance of a good pension. Women are also subjected to stereotyping within the workplace which results in a lack of access to promotions and lower wages.

 Feminism suggests that childcare costs too much for women, especially those who are lone-parents, to return to work and are therefore forced to live on benefits. Women who have caring responsibilities have no specific help from the government. This would allow more to return to work. Furthermore, women have no specific ‘back to work’ programmes aimed at those who have children and are seeking employment. This would aid those who cannot find employment which fits around their responsibilities (Bartelli,I 2012).

Within the study, regarding the welfare reform there are many points. Oxfam’s main areas of concern included the proposal that a single payment of benefits would be made to one single claimant within the household. Oxfam found that this would affect the women and children living within these families severely as the man is more likely to prioritise his needs over those of his family. The system assumes that money coming in to the household is shared equally between couples. Research, however, suggests otherwise and that the use of the income is dependant on who receives it. Another area of concern that Oxfam focused on was the move away from universal and non-means tested benefits which provides essential social protection. Means-tested benefits would again mean more couples would be jointly assessed and as a result receive a single payment of benefits. This would be an issue for venerable groups such as migrant women, traveller women and those who do not speak English as their first language. Furthermore, the use of stronger conditionality concerns Oxfam as many lone parents, mainly women, in particular may not be able to meet them. Oxfam believe tat the use of stronger conditionality should be a policy of last resort. Finally, Oxfam stressed the impact on women’s motivation and ability to get back to work. Due to rising costs of childcare, lone parents – again mostly women – find it difficult to find part-time employment and therefore have to rely on benefits. Child Tax Credits alone do not cover this cost (Oxfam, 2010).

Low-paid employment and caring responsibilities continue to hold women back, and cause huge poverty for them in today’s society. Furthermore, inequality still exists within employment as women who are in employment continue to be subjected to lower pay than men, even within identical roles.
Feminism, however, has many criticisms. Feminism may be dismissed in today’s society as some radical feminists groups may be too extreme. Within these groups, equality is not the issue, but patriarchy. Furthermore, if patriarchy was to be replaced by matriarchy, this would not resolve the issues of discrimination.
Oxfam’s study, ‘A Gender Perspective on 21^st Century Welfare Reform’, can also be criticised. The study does not take into account that males may be the ones caring for children as it focuses on criticising them. Furthermore, it does not take in to account the nuclear family but focuses solely on lone parent families headed by women.

The Social Democratic Approach

The Social Democratic Approach argues that a capitalist society results in the need for a welfare state. The Social Democratic Approach believes that the capitalist system is wasteful and inefficient. Within this state, profit driven margins do not care for the elderly, poor or disabled who suffer as a result. The approach believes that the strong within society should support the weak. Therefore, they suggest that the government should intervene in the market in order to compensate the victims, redistribute income and provide opportunity for the under-privileged. This, they suggest would create greater social justice (s-cool.co.uk, 2012).

The Social Democratic Approach suggests that welfare is vital in order to regulate the undesirable effects of a capitalist society such as low wages and unemployment. They suggest that making benefits universal would help eliminate poverty as means testing fuels the poverty trap. Furthermore, they stress that selective benefits are both humiliating and beaurocratic and that people may avoid claiming what they can as they may be embarrassed. This contributes more to poverty. Means testing is seen by social democrats as a form of social control as it givens the state power over claimants (s-cool.co.uk, 2011).

Kenway’s study, ‘Addressing In-work Poverty’, showed a shocking relationship between those in low-paid employment and those in poverty. The study shows that in-work poverty’s ‘share’ of total child poverty was 50%, this however has now reached 58% since the study took place. The study argues that the creation of a system of free, universal childcare would help part-working families stay above the poverty line. Furthermore, cutting the levels of tax paid by low-income families would also help. Universal benefits, the study stresses, are vital as currently working tax credits lift around one million children out of in-work poverty every year. Moreover, a study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation supports the evidence of Kenway’s study, showing that in 2012, 2.1 million impoverished children lived in homes were parents work.
 
The studies emphasise that even when working, poverty exists across families in Britain. This is a huge cause of welfare dependency even those who wish to work cannot as they earn more living on benefits, forcing them to become dependant. Lessening the amount low-income families have to pay in tax and the introduction of free, universal childcare may help families shift away from welfare dependency (Kenway.P, 2008).
The social democratic approach, in general, stress the need for welfare in today’s Capitalist society. They stress that within a capitalist state, welfare is needed to regulate the negative effects of capitalism such as low wages and unemployment. Also, the approach emphasises how the welfare system needs to be changed dramatically in order to support those living in poverty. Furthermore, universal benefits and cuts in the amount of tax paid by those on low incomes, social democratic’s believed, would benefit today’s poor as it would lessen the amount of people afftected by the benefit trap. Also, the Social Democratic Approach stresses that the government should intervene in the market to help those that have been affected by it and compinsate them.

An Introduction

In this essay, I will discuss how different theories explain what causes poverty, the issues with the welfare state and how they can be resolved and how studies have supported the arguements of each theory.

Oxford dictionaries define poverty as ‘the state of being extremely poor’ (oxforddictionaires, 2012). However, there is a lot more to be said about those living in poverty than just being ‘extremely poor’. This essay will provide an explanation from the point of view of three contrasting theories as to the causes and solutions to poverty today.

Social policy refers to the guidelines, principles and legislation that affect the living conditions conducive to human welfare (encyclo, 2012).

Poverty can be split in to two categories: relative poverty and absolute poverty. Absolute poverty describes the severe deprivation of basic human needs such as food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities and shelter. Relative poverty, however, refers to people who think they live in poverty in comparison to other people as they do not have what they have. An example of this may be an individual feeling they are living in poverty as they cannot afford to go abroad for a holiday whereas their neighbours can.

William Beveridge, in 1942, wrote a ‘Report on Social Insurance and Allied Services’. This report created much public interest after the war and the poverty that entailed. The public, during the war, thrived on the help the government provided through rationing and felt that the government should continue to help those in need. Beveridge’s report influenced Labour’s 1945 reform, and Beveridge stressed that all people in work should pay a single weekly contribution to the state in which they live in order to fund welfare which should be given to them in times of need such as ill-health and unemployment. (bbc,2012). Beveridge claimed that there were ‘five giant evils’ which needed to be tackled in order to eliminate poverty. These were as follows: ‘want’, the idea that all in society should be provided with the basic living conditions. In order to solve this, Labour created the National Insurance Act, which provided sickness and unemployment benefit. The Industries Act make compensation for work related injury compulsory and The Insurance Act provided benefits for those who were not covered by the National Insurance Act previously. ‘Disease’ focused on eliminating major illnesses that were linked to financial trouble through the inability to work. Labour answered with the creation of the National Health Service Act which meant all citizens could enjoy medical, dental and optical services all free of charges. However, soon after charges for spectacles and dental treatment returned. The issue of ‘squalor’- poverty having a knock-on effect on illness and employment - was also addressed by Labour. The New Towns Act resulted in the construction of fourteen new towns across Britain. However, huge housing shortages still existed. ‘Ignorance’, another of Beveridge’s five giants, aimed to tackle poor education within Britain. The Education Act made secondary education, up until the age of fifteen years, compulsory using the eleven plus exam. This was beneficial to those children who would have not previously had the chance to attend secondary school. The final of the five giants, ‘idleness’, aimed to tackle the large problem of unemployment. The Labour government took control of more industries such as steal and iron manufacture as they could use tax money to keep these afloat in difficult economic times (bbc, 2012).

Within society, people have basic needs which must be met in order for people to be living above the poverty line. These needs can be divided in to four categories; normative needs and comparative needs. Normative needs refer to those which are identified according to a norm which are generally set by experts. An example of this is benefit levels or the standards of housing in which people are living. Comparative needs, on the other hand, emerge from the comparison to those who are not in need. This can be used to determine which areas of a country are most deprived (Spicker.P, 2012). Felt need is expressed from the perspective of those who have it. Expressed need, however, is a need which people say they have. People can however, feel a need which they do not express and can express a need which they do not feel.

The New Right Approach

The New Right Approach believes that the capitalist system is capable of providing stability and wealth for all. However, government interference in the market place distorts the balance of supply and demand. They stress that the government should not be involved in the economy except for four main functions: to maintain law and order, defence of the country, to provide protection from members of community who are not considered safe and the provision of help to those in need (s-cool.co.uk, 2011).

The New Right Approach suggests that single parenthood is a significant cause of poverty and a drain on the welfare system. The approach states that there are an increased number of single mothers now dependant on the state and illegitimacy rates have also risen rapidly. The rising numbers of absent fathers who do not pay child support has resulted in poorer mothers and poorer children. The New Right suggests that there are too many young people who are dependant on the welfare state. The rising unemployment levels, 20.5% from 1889-1999 in 18-24 year olds, concerns them as they believe benefits are now too easy to claim (sociology.org.uk, 2012). Moreover, they suggest that people are now earning more living on benefits than they would be in employment and therefore continue to claim from the government. This state of ‘dependency’, the New Right claims, is why benefits should be cut (Haralambos and Holburn, 2004).

The New Right Approach stresses that universal benefits such as child benefit and pensions are a huge drain on the economy. They argue that the demand for these benefits is constantly rising and the government cannot continue to supply them. They suggest the introduction of means testing across benefits so that only those who desperately need them, or the ‘deserving poor’, receive them. They suggest that the privatisation of the welfare state would encourage individual responsibility and family ‘self-help’ in order for people to wean themselves off of benefits. This, they argue, would allow for money to be channelled back in to the economy. Finally, as mentioned previously, they discourage single parenthood as mothers and fathers living apart may draw more money from the state then when living together. Furthermore, previously mothers would not have been able to afford being single. Now, however, the numbers of single mothers are increasing rapidly as benefits provide them with the ability to be independent. The New Right Approach suggests that the elimination of benefits for single mothers would tackle this issue.

Charles Murray, an American Theorist, identified the materialization of an ‘underclass’. He stated, “When I use the term underclass I am indeed focusing on a certain type of poor person defined not by his condition, e.g. long term unemployed, but by his deplorable behaviour in response to that condition, e.g. unwilling to take the jobs that is available to him” (peterjepson.com, 2012). Murray claimed that there were three forms of behaviour that defines underclass status; parenting behaviour, criminal behaviour and labour market behaviour. Murray suggested that the poor themselves are to blame for their own poverty as they choose to act a certain way or, rather, are conditioned to act like this by an over-generous government. Murray argued that the problems with the underclass in Britain were getting increasingly worse with illegitimacy rates rising from 1889, were one in four births were outwith marriage, to 1999 were 38% were (Murray.C, 2001).

There are a number of criticisms of the New Right Approach. Firstly, the approach blames the victims for the position they are in. The approach does not take in to consideration an individuals circumstances that have caused them to be unemployed or a single parent. The approach generalises all single parents as the cause of a drain of the welfare state and fails to consider other causes such as people with illness who cannot work, those with addictions who cannot work and those who simply choose not to work. In addition, the attitudes of the ‘underclass’ may have been emphasised through the media within newspapers and television programmes. Charles Murray’s studies, Underclass and Underclass +10 have been criticised as being inaccurate and exaggerated.