Solutions to Poverty

The War on Poverty

It is noted by Gans that poverty research is conducted by middle-class people. In line with this observation, the approach to poverty that has been primarily adopted has been motivated by the theory of a “culture of poverty”. In the words of Valentine: “the poor must become 'middle class'”.

The programme to eradicate poverty in the US, declared by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 as a “war on poverty” was motivated by the theory that the poor are to blame for their poverty. The American anthropologist Thomas Gladwin claims that “The whole conception of the War on Poverty rests upon a definition of poverty as a way of life. The intellectual climate in which it was nurtured was created by studies of the culture of poverty, notably those of Oscar Lewis ... [which] provide the basis for programs at the national level designed very explicitly to correct the social, occupational and psychological deficits of people born and raised to a life of poverty.

Under this initiative an Office of Economic Opportunity was created. This office in turn created (1) a Jobs Corps which set up residential camps for the unemployed designed to build character; (2) work experience programmes designed to instill work habits; (3) training schemes aiming to create 'work incentive'.

Operation Head Start started in January 1965 and was designed to attack the culture of poverty at grass roots level — inculcate middle-class culture into the poor at school. The Office of Economic Opportunity sought to inculcate middle-class values with the idea of community action — initiatives to get the poor to help themselves.

The War on Poverty did not favour the use of direct transfer payments to the poor. It reflects the American dream, which is that America is a land of opportunity where every individual can succeed through his own efforts. One welfare recipient commented. “It's great stuff this War on Poverty! Where do I surrender?”

Most sociologists have rejected the “culture of poverty” theory on which the War on Poverty rested. Gans comments that “the prime obstacles to the elimination of poverty lie in an economic system which is dedicated to the maintenance and increase of wealth among the already affluent.”

Stratification and solutions to poverty

Marxists argue that only a change in the socio-economic system away from capitalism would eradicate poverty.

However, the suggestions offered by those who explain poverty in terms of the structure of society, are vague — for example, those offered by Miller and Roby, who seek to make proposals that are both radical, yet, they claim, still fall within the framework of a capitalist society.

The policies of Reagan and Bush have gone in the other direction. They have introduced drastic cuts in programmes for the poor, and increases in taxation for the low paid and reductions for the wealthiest.

Welfare in Britain

Between 1945 and 1979 British governments were prepared to use transfer payments to alleviate poverty. However, the Conservative governments of Thatcher and Major, following 1979, reversed this trend. They were influenced by theories of the New Right, and reduced welfare expenditure. They reformed it in April 1987, replacing supplementary benefit by income support, and removing the facility for single payments for essential items (such as furniture) replacing it by loans from a “social fund” which were repayable; and only those who could repay them would be granted them. In September 1988 the age at which people could claim income support was raised from 16 to 18. In theory teenagers between 16 and 18 would be placed on a Youth Training Scheme, but in practice, according the Child Poverty Action Group, there were insufficient places and those who could not find employment or a place could end up destitute.

The Conservative government claimed that the incomes of the poorest 20% rose by 5.5% on average between 1979 and 1985. However, the economist Hills noted that these figures were not adjusted for changes in indirect taxation (such as VAT and duties) and when this is done so, the income of the poorest 20% fell by 6% in this period. The evidence all suggests that poverty increased during the 1980s and early 1990s.

An opinion poll conducted by Mack and Lansley indicated that 74% of the population would support an increase of 1% in income tax in order to help the poor. Only 34% would support an increase of 5% for the same purpose.