The Bond between Poverty and Social Exclusion


(With Special Emphasis on Education and Children)


Understanding Poverty and Social Exclusion


Poverty is a difficult question from both a methodological and a theoretical point of view. Furthermore, it is a very ambiguous political issue. Many difficulties derive from the irreducible distance between the abstract concept and the findings from research. The concept is based on the idea that, for various reasons and for variable periods of time, a part of the population lacks access to sufficient resources to enable it to survive at a historically or geographically determined minimum standard of life and that this leads to serious consequences in terms of behavior and social relations.


In everyday use, poverty in rich countries is often seen as inability to
attain a decent or adequate living standard. What is considered adequate,
what are generally perceived as needs, will change over time and differ
across societies: poverty is in that sense relative. This is not a new definition,
since poverty has always been defined in relation to the standards with
which people in a particular time and place are familiar. This was put with
admirable clarity by, in a much-quoted passage, when he wrote that ‘necessaries’ included ‘not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but what ever the custom of the
country renders it indecent for creditable people, even the lowest orders, to
be without’. The examples he gives are leather shoes and linen shirts:
neither essential for survival, but in late eighteenth-century England ‘the
poorest creditable person would be ashamed to appear in public without
them’. What are seen as needs are thus inevitably socially determined. As
 (1983) emphasizes, it is in the notion of shame that the core of the
concept of poverty is to be found: the absence of resources puts people in a
situation where they cannot live with dignity in their society.


The most influential attempt to spell out a definition of poverty that has
general applicability is that of :


Individuals, families and groups in the population can be said to be in poverty when they lack the resources to obtain the type of diet, participate in the activities and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or at least widely encouraged, or approved, in the societies to which they belong. 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. (1979)


 aimed at analyzing styles of living and at developing indicators of objective deprivation, that is where households lack an amenity or do not
participate in an activity which a majority of the population have or participated in. Twelve sub-categories or dimensions of deprivation were distinguished, namely dietary, clothing, fuel and light, household facilities,
housing conditions, work conditions, health, education, environment, family activities, recreational, and social relations. Information on a total of
sixty items across these domains was gathered for households in his survey
(1969).


Poverty is now widely conceptualized in terms of  exclusion from the life of society because of a lack of resources, and being
‘excluded’ in this context is generally taken to mean experiencing various
forms of what that society regards as serious deprivation, both material and social. In relying on income to make statements about poverty defined in
this way, it is necessary to assume that those falling below the specified
income poverty line are not able to participate fully in the life of the
community. This cannot be simply taken for granted, however: it requires
validation. Indeed, stringent critique of the use of income poverty
lines is based precisely on the argument that low income is quite unreliable
as an indicator of poverty, because it often fails to distinguish households
experiencing deprivation and exclusion.


A good starting-point for the definition of poverty as social exclusion arises from lack of resources, and to see how information on deprivation indicators and income can be used to incorporate both exclusion and lack of resources directly into the poverty measure. Ringen’s critique of reliance on income in measuring poverty is based on the argument that income is not a satisfactory measure of poverty because many of that not on low income suffer deprivation in consumption, and far from all the members of low income groups suffer such deprivation.


How then are the poor to be distinguished from the non-poor? It is
necessary to be clear at the outset that this involves two distinct elements:
one is deciding on the indicator or yardstick on which to focus in measuring poverty, and the other is deriving a poverty standard applying to that
yardstick. A brief reference to the literature on poverty measurement in
developing countries helps in developing this point. The most common
approach to measuring poverty in those countries involves specifying what are regarded as ‘minimally adequate’ (or some such formulation) levels of
consumption of items such as food, clothing, and shelter, and using information on prevailing prices to arrive at the minimum expenditure level that
allows this basket of goods to be obtained (perhaps with some provision for
waste or inefficient expenditure).
Most often, household incomes are then
compared with this minimum to judge whether the members of the house-
hold are in poverty. Alternatively, it is also quite common for household
expenditure to be used for that purpose: households with expenditure rather
than income below the minimum are considered poor. However, the ‘basic
needs’ literature has focused instead on measurement of the extent to which
minimal levels or standards are actually being attained by a household
in terms of food, clothing, shelter, health care, and so on. This multi-
dimensional approach allows for the possibility that someone may be
‘clothing-poor’ but not ‘food-poor’, and requires direct observation of
the consumption patterns and living conditions of individuals/households.


National aggregates for non-monetary social indicators’ such as life expectancy, infant and child mortality rates, literacy rates, educational participation, and housing conditions have long been used by international
organizations and academic studies to complement per capita GDP in
comparing welfare levels across countries. Most recently, dissatisfaction
with per capita GDP as a measure of a country’s welfare has led the United
Nations Development Programme to develop its Human Development
Index, a composite of GDP per capita, life expectancy, and literacy levels.
In developed countries there has also been a long tradition of employing
indicators such as unemployment rates and housing conditions in comparing welfare or deprivation levels across regions or areas within cities.


Income alone is not a good indicator of poverty. But since income is a more tangible data for the economist to analyze how much the household or the individual can purchase and fill his “basket” in the market, income is widely used as an indicator of poverty. Poverty is much more complex than simply income deprivation. Poverty entails lack of empowerment, lack of knowledge and lack of opportunity as well as lack of income and capital.


Poverty and social exclusion whoever are interconnected in many ways not only in economic point of view, but as well as in social services and political rights. Poverty comes in many varieties, as do explanations as to its causes and effects on the people who are experiencing it. Poverty in the third world for example, can be a matter of life and death, and is experienced in a very different way from poverty in the developed world. One of the most recent developments in this context has been the move from defining poverty in terms of the lack of material resources to the concept of social exclusion, which focuses on the issue of social rights (1999). While some see this as new and better way of understanding the problem of disadvantaged groups, others claim it is simply poverty, in yet another guise.


Townsend sees poverty as being attributed to a lack of material resources and the poor are those who are materially disadvantaged. His approach is multidimensional in that deprivation, due to lack of material resources can arise from a number of factors and can have a profound affect in many other aspects of a persons life such as diet, clothing, health, education and family activities. It is only when their difficulties arise from the lack of material resources that they can be categorized as poor.


Educational attainment disparity between the poor and the rich is one concrete example how poverty is linked to social exclusion. Education is seen to be the great panacea by which inequality and poverty can be reduced. Attending a college or university in the United States is very expensive. And even when basic education is available, the poorest are unable to avail of it because the direct and opportunity costs attached to it are quite high for them. A year at a prominent four-year university can cost almost ,000, and this does not include the extra costs of housing, transportation, and other living expenses. There are, of course, less expensive options at colleges that also offer an excellent education. Most four-year colleges cost at least ,000 per year, and many more are in the ,000 to ,000 range. For families in the United States, paying for the education of their children has become a major expense.


Furthermore, dropping out of school because of poverty virtually guarantees perpetuation of the poverty cycle since the income-earning potential of the child is reduced, not to mention overall productivity, receptivity to change, and capacity to improve quality of life. Lack of education perpetuates poverty, and poverty constrains access to schooling. Eliminating poverty requires providing access to quality education.


Low levels of investment by family and society in the education and development of disadvantaged children translate into poorer outcomes when those children grow up-reduced employment and lower wages, higher rates of early and non-marital childbearing, and lower incomes, with all the concomitant risks to family health and well-being ( 2005).


Because of the high cost of education, poor families are forced to let go of “higher educational learning” for their children. With cognitive labor rapidly supplanting physical labor, the theme of the times seems to be that if Americans are to successfully compete in the new economic world system then the quality and quantity of their education must be increased. Children coming from poor families that never reached college of course logically cannot compete in the job hunt for cognitive labor. Poverty is thus both a cause and an effect of insufficient access to or completion of quality education. Children of poor families are less likely to enroll in and complete schooling because of the associated costs of attending school even when it is provided “free”.


According to the latest  reports, there is a big pay-off between educational attainment and synthetic estimates of work-life earnings.  Average earnings of high school dropouts range from ,900 to , 900 for high school graduates. College graduates earns an average of , 400 while workers with professional degrees like doctors and lawyers earn about $ 99, 300 average per year. From this data alone we can safely say that higher education level is associated with an increase in earning or income. The relationship between education and poverty reduction is thus quite straight and linear as education is empowering; it enables the person to participate in the development process; it inculcates the knowledge and skills needed to improve the income earning potential and in turn the quality of life.


Education thus helps to lay the foundation for the following pillars of poverty reduction: Empowerment, human development, social development and good governance. In which because of poverty, education became an exclusion to poor people, thus forgoing the very pillars of poverty reduction. The cycle of poverty continue then.


Income, however is the not the sole determinant of being poor. But individual income is a big factor in determining the necessities the individual have to sacrifice, or can acquire depending upon his income. Poverty is not just an issue of income, it represents an avalanche of issues including lack of health insurance, inadequate education and poor nutrition. Poverty puts children at an unfair disadvantage for future opportunities. Children who are poor are more likely to die in infancy, have low birth weight, lack health care, housing and adequate food. They also receive lower scores in math and reading. This is because poverty cannot afford them basic necessities that is needed to ensure them a good future, though a good future is not given, but it can be worked upon given the basic needs. Protecting the well being of our children is a basic obligation which adults must embrace and public policies must promote, failing to do so has personal and social consequences ( 2005). CDF estimates that each year that we allow more than 12 million children to live in poverty will cost our society 0 billion in future economic output as poor children grow up to be less productive and effective workers ( 1997).


Poor families are forced to make choices between paying rent and buying food or medicine. One recent report, based on the findings of pediatric health professionals, looked at the cost of food insecurity to young children’s growth, health and development. It concluded that children raised in food insecure households are more likely to suffer poor health, including illnesses severe enough to require hospitalization. The average total cost for a single hospitalization for pediatric illness is , 300. The same amount would purchase almost five years of food stamps for a family receiving the fiscal year 2004 average monthly household benefit of 0 (2005).


Poverty is a cycle unless one of the pillars, empowerment, human development and social development, of poverty reduction are meet. What hinders the poor from erecting these pillars are lack of material resources, like money, shelter, clothing, foods etc. Lack of information and education also hinders empowerment, personal and social development. Thus, poverty and social exclusion are linked as one. Social exclusion is just a polite term for poverty.


 


 


 


 



Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com


0 comments:

Post a Comment

 
Top