NOP poll revealed that despite having the fourth largest economy in the world the UK has one of the highest levels of child poverty of all industrialised countries, with 3.8 million children (1 in 3) living in poverty.

This page deals with the first topic ("bullet point") in the AQA specification for Module 2: Wealth, Poverty and Welfare. This is:

• Different definitions of poverty and wealth and income

Let's start with wealth and income. These are similar concepts, but we need to carefully distinguish them.

Wealth

This is defined as owning assets like property, shares, savings, and possessions. However(note the evaluation here!) there are problems with measuring this. Should we count houses as wealth? Very wealthy people can sell a house or two to raise some cash, but the rest of the population are incapable of doing this: their house is a necessity. There are also problems about how sociologists collect data on wealth. Figures on wealth, even those collected by the government, are likely to be invalid, as the wealthiest will take pains to hide their wealth from the tax-man.

The distribution of wealth

Bearing in mind the above problems of measurement, sociologists agree that wealth is distributed very unequally in Britain. The wealthiest 10% of the population currently own about 49% of all marketable wealth in the country - half of the country's assets are held by a small minority of extremely wealthy people.

There has been some sharing out of wealth into the population in recent years. (Wealth was much more concentrated in fewer hands before the second world war, for example.) This is due to the increase in share ownership by ordinary middle and working class people. Lots of families now have shares in the public utilities (gas, electricity, water, etc) that were sold off by Conservative governments of 1979 - 97; or shares in building societies that were given away to account holders. In addition, over 70% of householders own their homes (again, partly as a result of Conservatives selling off council houses), and this is counted by some as a sign of increasing wealth for ordinary people. On the other hand, however (note evaluation again!!) a small proportion of extremely wealthy people own the majority of shares in UK companies. 20% of marketable wealth is owned by a mere 1% of the population; this is extreme inequality in wealth ownership.

We can use a theoretical perspective here. Marxists would use this as proof of their theory about capitalism being exploitative and oppressive. The small group of wealthy people would be the capitalist class (so called because they own the capital, or wealth), and the rest would be the propertyless workers, or proletariat class. It is their hard work that makes the capitalists wealthy.

We will be looking at a study by Adonis & Pollard which says that there is an emerging "superclass" in Britain, made up of exceptionally wealthy people.

Income

This is the money which comes to an individual or household. The most obvious source is earnings from employment, but there are also benefits (such as pensions, child benefit, housing benefit, etc), and income from shares and investments. Again, note that sociologists have real dificulty in measuring income. The statistics are again likely to be invalid due to much income being undeclared.

The distribution of income.

Income is more evenly distributed than wealth. However, there are serious inequalities: think what professional footballers, barristers, and merchant bankers earn, compared with nurses, council workers, and shop assistants. Then think of the extremely low incomes of those who do not work, and have to rely solely on benefits. This income gap or income differential is actually increasing - since 1979 (when Margaret Thatcher's "New Right" Conservative government came to power) the rich have been getting richer, and the poor have been getting poorer. This was proven by a survey that we will be looking at in detail: "Inquiry into Income and Wealth" by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Poverty

Differences in income merely reflect inequality, but the concept of poverty implies that there is a lack; some people or households have so little wealth or income that there is a problem that needs solving. Sociologists have defined poverty in two different ways. First, there is

Absolute Poverty.

This is subsistence; when people lack the basic physical necessities of life. They are too poor to afford necessary food, warmth, clothing and shelter - a condition often associated with famine in developing ("Third World") countries. A good example of a study which uses this is

Rowntree (1899 - York).

Rowntree introduced the concept of the poverty line - an imaginary line drawn across society, below which people are said to be living in poverty. Rowntree's poverty line was based upon material subsistence: the minimum amount of money required to buy the calories necessary to sustain life. He found that 33% of the population of York were in poverty.

Evaluation? On the one hand, this is a good definition of poverty, as it is scientific and objective. There can be no argument about it, as starvation is starvation! On the other hand, it could be argued that this is not so objective, as some individuals may require more calories than others, and different climates would certainly make a difference to calory needs. Also, this is a very harsh definition of poverty, and rather dated, in so far as few, if any, British people now experience this type of poverty. Affluence and the Welfare State have made this definition obsolete.

Drewnowski & Scott used it more recently, however. They operationalise poverty as the inability to meet "basic physical needs". But, significantly, they include security, education, and health, as well as nutrition: more evidence that absolute poverty is not so objective!

Relative Poverty

This is when people are poor relative to, or compared to, the society in which they live. The poverty line therefore varies from society to society ("poor" in the UK is different from "poor" in Bangladesh, or "poor" in Beverley Hills)and over time (what counts as "poor" in contemporary Britain is different from what counted as such in Victorian, or Mediaeval times). The best example of this is

Townsend.

He considered 3 ways of measuring poverty, all relative to the standards of our society:

• Benefit levels (all those who are receiving or entitled to government benefits are said to be living in poverty) - Rejected, as government benefit levels are arbitrary, and raising benefits actually "creates" more poor people, as more people are entitled to the benefits!!
• Relative income (all those with incomes below a certain level are living in poverty.)Rejected, as the level is still arbitrary; plus the fact that it does not take wealth into account; plus the fact that it does not take expenditure into account: £200 per week is fine for a single person living with parents, but represents poverty for a someone with 6 dependent relatives.
• Relative Deprivation (the poor are those who are deprived of the things which society considers normal). For example, a person is poor in contemporary Britain if they cannot afford things like a night out, a mobile phone, a TV, or a summer holiday. This is the one that Townsend favoured. It makes sense, doesn't it?