research question on poverty

Ten Important Questions About Child Poverty and Family Economic Hardship

• Publication Type   Report  
• Post date December 1, 2009

Download PDF

What is the Nature of Poverty and Economic Hardship in the United States?

• What does it mean to experience poverty?
• How is poverty measured in the United States?
• Are Americans who experience poverty now better off than a generation ago?
• How accurate are commonly held stereotypes about poverty and economic hardship?

How Serious is the Problem of Economic Hardship for American Families?

• How many children in the U.S. live in families with low incomes?
• Are some children and families at greater risk for economic hardship than others?
• What are the effects of economic hardship on children?

Is it Possible to Reduce Economic Hardship among American Families?

• Why is there so much economic hardship in a country as wealthy as the U.S.?
• Why should Americans care about family economic hardship?
• What can be done to increase economic security for America’s children and families?

1.  What does it mean to experience poverty?

Families and their children experience poverty when they are unable to achieve a minimum, decent standard of living that allows them to participate fully in mainstream society. One component of poverty is material hardship. Although we are all taught that the essentials are food, clothing, and shelter, the reality is that the definition of basic material necessities varies by time and place. In the United States, we all agree that having access to running water, electricity, indoor plumbing, and telephone service are essential to 21st century living even though that would not have been true 50 or 100 years ago.

To achieve a minimum but decent standard of living, families need more than material resources; they also need “human and social capital.” Human and social capital include education, basic life skills, and employment experience, as well as less tangible resources such as social networks and access to civic institutions. These non-material resources provide families with the means to get by, and ultimately, to get ahead. Human and social capital help families improve their earnings potential and accumulate assets, gain access to safe neighborhoods and high-quality services (such as medical care, schooling), and expand their networks and social connections.

The experiences of children and families who face economic hardship are far from uniform. Some families experience hard times for brief spells while a small minority experience chronic poverty. For some, the greatest challenge is inadequate financial resources, whether insufficient income to meet daily expenses or the necessary assets (savings, a home) to get ahead. For others, economic hardship is compounded by social isolation. These differences in the severity and depth of poverty matter, especially when it comes to the effects on children.

2. How is poverty measured in the United States?

The U.S. government measures poverty by a narrow income standard — this measure does not include material hardship (such as living in substandard housing) or debt, nor does it consider financial assets (such as savings or property). Developed more than 40 years ago, the official poverty measure is a specific dollar amount that varies by family size but is the same across the continental U.S..

According to the federal poverty guidelines, the poverty level is $22,050 for a family of four and $18,310 for a family of three (see table). (The poverty guidelines are used to determine eligibility for public programs. A similar but more complicated measure is used for calculating poverty rates.)

The current poverty measure was established in the 1960s and is now widely acknowledged to be outdated. It was based on research indicating that families spent about one-third of their incomes on food — the official poverty level was set by multiplying food costs by three. Since then, the same figures have been updated annually for inflation but have otherwise remained unchanged.

Yet food now comprises only one-seventh of an average family’s expenses, while the costs of housing, child care, health care, and transportation have grown disproportionately. Most analysts agree that today’s poverty thresholds are too low. And although there is no consensus about what constitutes a minimum but decent standard of living in the U.S., research consistently shows that, on average, families need an income of about twice the federal poverty level to meet their most basic needs.

Failure to update the federal poverty level for changes in the cost of living means that people who are considered poor today by the official standard are worse off relative to everyone else than people considered poor when the poverty measure was established. The current federal poverty measure equals about 31 percent of median household income, whereas in the 1960s, the poverty level was nearly 50 percent of the median.

The European Union and most advanced industrialized countries measure poverty quite differently from the U.S. Rather than setting minimum income thresholds below which individuals and families are considered to be poor, other countries measure economic disadvantage relative to the citizenry as a whole, for example, having income below 50 percent of median.

3. Are Americans who experience poverty now better off than a generation ago?

Material deprivation is not as widespread in the United States as it was 30 or 40 years ago. For example, few Americans experience severe or chronic hunger, due in large part to public food and nutrition programs, such as food stamps, school breakfast and lunch programs, and WIC (the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children). Over time, Social Security greatly reduced poverty and economic insecurity among the elderly. Increased wealth and technological advances have made it possible for ordinary families to have larger houses, computers, televisions, multiple cars, stereo equipment, air conditioning, and cell phones.

Some people question whether a family that has air conditioning or a DVD player should be considered poor. But in a wealthy nation such as the US, cars, computers, TVs, and other technologies are considered by most to be a normal part of mainstream American life rather than luxuries. Most workers need a car to get to work. TVs and other forms of entertainment link people to mainstream culture. And having a computer with access to the internet is crucial for children to keep up with their peers in school. Even air conditioning does more than provide comfort — in hot weather, it increases children’s concentration in school and improves the health of children, the elderly, and the chronically ill.

Consider as well the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina. Prior to the hurricane, New Orleans had one of the highest child poverty rates in the country — 38 percent (and this figure would be much higher if it included families with incomes up to twice the official poverty level). One in five households in New Orleans lacked a car, and eight percent had no phone service. The pervasive social and economic isolation increased the loss of life from the hurricane and exacerbated the devastating effects on displaced families and children.

Focusing solely on the material possessions a family has ignores the other types of resources they need to provide a decent life for their children — a home in a safe neighborhood; access to good schools, good jobs and basic services; and less tangible resources such as basic life skills and support networks.

4. How accurate are commonly held stereotypes about poverty?

The most commonly held stereotypes about poverty are false. Family poverty in the U.S. is typically depicted as a static, entrenched condition, characterized by large numbers of children, chronic unemployment, drugs, violence, and family turmoil. But the realities of poverty and economic hardship are very different.

Americans often talk about “poor people” as if they are a distinct group with uniform characteristics and somehow unlike the rest of “us.” In fact, there is great diversity among children and families who experience economic hardship. Research shows that many stereotypes just aren’t accurate: a study of children born between 1970 and 1990 showed that 35 percent experienced poverty at some point during their childhood; only a small minority experienced persistent and chronic poverty. And more than 90 percent of low-income single mothers have only one, two, or three children.

Although most portrayals of poverty in the media and elsewhere reflect the experience of only a few, a significant portion of families in America have experienced economic hardship, even if it is not life-long. Americans need new ways of thinking about poverty that allow us to understand the full range of economic hardship and insecurity in our country. In addition to the millions of families who struggle to make ends meet, millions of others are merely one crisis — a job loss, health emergency, or divorce — away from financial devastation, particularly in this fragile economy. A recent study showed that the majority of American families with children have very little savings to rely on during times of crisis. Recently, more and more families have become vulnerable to economic hardship.

5. How many children in the US live in families with low incomes?

Given that official poverty statistics are deeply flawed, the National Center for Children in Poverty uses “low income” as one measure of economic hardship. Low income is defined as having income below twice the federal poverty level — the amount of income that research suggests is needed on average for families to meet their basic needs. About 41 percent of the nation’s children — nearly 30 million in 2008 — live in families with low incomes, that is, incomes below twice the official poverty level (for 2009, about $44,000 for a family of four).

Although families with incomes between 100 and 200 percent of the poverty level are not officially classified as poor, many face material hardships and financial pressures similar to families with incomes below the poverty level. Missed rent payments, utility shut offs, inadequate access to health care, unstable child care arrangements, and running out of food are not uncommon for such families.

Low-income rates for young children are higher than those for older children — 44 percent of children under age six live in low-income families, compared to 39 percent of children over age six. Parents of younger children tend to be younger and to have less education and work experience than parents of older children, so their earnings are typically lower.

6. Are some children and families at greater risk for economic hardship than others?

Low levels of parental education are a primary risk factor for being low income. Eighty-three percent of children whose parents have less than a high school diploma live in low-income families, and over half of children whose parents have only a high school degree are low income as well. Workers with only a high school degree have seen their wages stagnate or decline in recent decades while the income gap between those who have a college degree and those who do not has doubled. Yet only 27 percent of workers in the U.S. have a college degree.

Single-parent families are at greater risk of economic hardship than two-parent families, largely because the latter have twice the earnings potential. But research indicates that marriage does not guarantee protection from economic insecurity. More than one in four children with married parents lives in a low-income family. In rural and suburban areas, the majority of low-income children have married parents. And among Latinos, more than half of children with married parents are low income. Moreover, most individuals who experience poverty as adults grew up in married-parent households.

Although low-income rates for minority children are considerably higher than those for white children, this is due largely to a higher prevalence of other risk factors, for example, higher rates of single parenthood and lower levels of parental education and earnings. About 61 percent of black, 62 percent of Latino children and 57 percent of American Indian children live in low-income families, compared to about 27 percent of white children and 31 percent of Asian children. At the same time, however, whites comprise the largest group of low-income children: 11 million white children live in families with incomes below twice the federal poverty line.

Having immigrant parents also increases a child’s chances of living in a low-income family. More than 20 percent of this country’s children — about 16 million — have at least one foreign-born parent. Sixty percent of children whose parents are immigrants are low-income, compared to 37 percent of children whose parents were born in the U.S.

7. What are the effects of economic hardship on children?

Economic hardship and other types of deprivation can have profound effects on children’s development and their prospects for the future — and therefore on the nation as a whole. Low family income can impede children’s cognitive development and their ability to learn. It can contribute to behavioral, social, and emotional problems. And it can cause and exacerbate poor child health as well. The children at greatest risk are those who experience economic hardship when they are young and children who experience severe and chronic hardship.

It is not simply the amount of income that matters for children. The instability and unpredictability of low-wage work can lead to fluctuating family incomes. Children whose families are in volatile or deteriorating financial circumstances are more likely to experience negative effects than children whose families are in stable economic situations.

The negative effects on young children living in low income families are troubling in their own right. These effects are also cause for concern because they are associated with difficulties later in life — dropping out of school, poor adolescent and adult health, poor employment outcomes and experiencing poverty as adults. Stable, nurturing, and enriching environments in the early years help create a sturdy foundation for later school achievement, economic productivity, and responsible citizenship.

Parents need financial resources as well as human and social capital (basic life skills, education, social networks) to provide the experiences, resources, and services that are essential for children to thrive and to grow into healthy, productive adults — high-quality health care, adequate housing, stimulating early learning programs, good schools, money for books, and other enriching activities. Parents who face chronic economic hardship are much more likely than their more affluent peers to experience severe stress and depression — both of which are linked to poor social and emotional outcomes for children.

Is it Possible to Reduce Economic Hardship for American Families?

8. why is there so much economic hardship in a country as wealthy as the u.s..

Given its wealth, the U.S. had unusually high rates of child poverty and income inequality, even prior to the current economic downturn. These conditions are not inevitable — they are a function both of the economy and government policy. In the late 1990s, for example, there was a dramatic decline in low-income rates, especially among the least well off families. The economy was strong and federal policy supports for low-wage workers with children — the Earned Income Tax Credit, public health insurance for children, and child care subsidies — were greatly expanded. In the current economic downturn, it is expected that the number of poor children will increase by millions.

Other industrialized nations have lower poverty rates because they seek to prevent  hardship by providing assistance to all families. These supports include “child allowances” (typically cash supplements), child care assistance, health coverage, paid family leave, and other supports that help offset the cost of raising children.

But the U.S. takes a different policy approach. Our nation does little to assist low-income working families unless they hit rock bottom. And then, such families are eligible only for means-tested benefits that tend to be highly stigmatized; most families who need help receive little or none. (One notable exception is the federal Earned Income Tax Credit.)

At the same time, middle- and especially upper-income families receive numerous government benefits that help them maintain and improve their standard of living — benefits that are largely unavailable to lower-income families. These include tax-subsidized benefits provided by employers (such as health insurance and retirement accounts), tax breaks for home owners (such as deductions for mortgage interest and tax exclusions for profits from home sales), and other tax preferences that privilege assets over income. Although most people don’t think of these tax breaks as government “benefits,” they cost the federal treasury nearly three times as much as benefits that go to low- to moderate-income families. In addition, middle- and upper-income families reap the majority of benefits from the child tax credit and the child care and dependent tax credit because neither is fully refundable.

In short, high rates of child poverty and income inequality in the U.S. can be reduced, but effective, widespread, and long-lasting change will require shifts in both national policy and the economy.

9. Why should Americans care about family economic hardship?

In addition to the harmful consequences for children, high rates of economic hardship exact a serious toll on the U.S. economy. Economists estimate that child poverty costs the U.S. $500 billion a year in lost productivity in the labor force and spending on health care and the criminal justice system. Each year, child poverty reduces productivity and economic output by about 1.3 percent of GDP.

The experience of severe or chronic economic hardship limits children’s potential and hinders our nation’s ability to compete in the global economy. American students, on average, rank behind students in other industrialized nations, particularly in their understanding of math and science. Analysts warn that America’s ability to compete globally will be severely hindered if many of our children are not as academically prepared as their peers in other nations.

Long-term economic trends are also troubling as they reflect the gradual but steady growth of economic insecurity among middle-income and working families over the last 30 years. Incomes have increased very modestly for all but the highest earners. Stagnant incomes combined with the high cost of basic necessities have made it difficult for families to save, and many middle- and low-income families alike have taken on crippling amounts of debt just to get by.

Research also indicates that economic inequality in America has been on the rise since the 1970s. Income inequality has reached historic levels — the income share of the top one percent of earners is at its highest level since 1929. Between 1979 and 2006, real after-tax incomes rose by 256 percent for the top one percent of households, compared to 21 percent and 11 percent for households in the middle and bottom fifth (respectively).

Economic mobility—the likelihood of moving from one income group to another—is on the decline in the U.S. Although Americans like to believe that opportunity is equally available to all, some groups find it harder to get ahead than others. Striving African American families have found upward mobility especially difficult to achieve and are far more vulnerable than whites to downward mobility. The wealth gap between blacks and whites — black families have been found to have one-tenth the net worth of white families — is largely responsible.

What all of these trends reveal is that the American Dream is increasingly out of reach for many families. The promise that hard work and determination will be rewarded has become an increasingly empty promise in 21st century America. It is in the best interest of our nation to see that the American Dream, an ideal so fundamental to our collective identity, be restored.

10. What can be done to increase economic security for America’s children and families?

A considerable amount of research has been devoted to this question. We know what families need to succeed economically, what parents need to care for and nurture their children, and what children need to develop into healthy, productive adults. The challenge is to translate this research knowledge into workable policy solutions that are appropriate for the US.

For families to succeed economically, we need an economy that works for all — one that provides workers with sufficient earnings to provide for a family. Specific policy strategies include strengthening the bargaining power of workers, expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, and increasing the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation. We also need to help workers get the training and education they need to succeed in a changing workforce. Dealing with low wages is necessary but not sufficient. Low- and middle-income families alike need relief from the high costs of health insurance and housing. Further programs that promote asset building among low-income families with children are also important.

As a nation, we also need to make it possible for adults to be both good workers and good parents, which requires greater workplace flexibility and paid time off. Workers need paid sick time, and parents need time off to tend to a sick child or talk to a child’s teacher. Currently, three in four low-wage workers have no paid sick days.

Despite the fact that a child’s earliest years have a profound effect on his or her life trajectory and ultimate ability to succeed, the U.S. remains one of the only industrialized countries that does not provide paid family leave for parents with a new baby. Likewise, child care is largely private in the U.S. — individual parents are left to find individual solutions to a problem faced by all working parents. Low- and middle-income families need more help paying for child care and more assistance in identifying reliable, nurturing care for their children, especially infants and toddlers.

These are only some of the policies needed to reduce economic hardship, strengthen families, and provide a brighter future for today’s — and tomorrow’s — children. With the right leadership, a strong national commitment, and good policy, it’s all possible.

Poverty and Social Exclusion

Defining, measuring and tackling poverty, latest articles, home page featured articles, buenos aires 2017.

A recent report form the city of Buenos Aires measuring multi-dimensional poverty, using the consensual method, has found that in 2019, 15.3% of households were multi-dimensionally  poor, rising to  25.7% for households with children under 18 years of age. The method established will be used to measure nu,ti-dimensional poverty on an ongoing basis.

6th Townsend poverty conference ad

We are now delighted to offer you the presentation slides and video recordings of sessions across the three days, featuring formal presentations, interactive Q&As, networking opportunities and much more.

Child deprivation in EU member states, 2018

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Steering Group on Measuring Poverty and Inequality has been tasked with producing a guide on Measuring Social Exclusion which references a lot of our PSE work.

100 questions about poverty

Progress in reducing or preventing poverty in the UK could be helped by the answers to 100 important research questions, according to a new report. The questions have been identified by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Centre for Science and Policy at the University of Cambridge, based on an exercise involving 45 participants from government, non-governmental organisations, academia and research. They cover a range of themes, and indicate areas of particular research interest.

Key questions include:

• Attitudes towards poverty – To what extent does stigma contribute to the experience of living in poverty in the UK, and what can be done to address this?
• Education and family – To what extent do families (including extended families) provide the first line of defence against individual poverty, and what are the limits and geographical variations of this support?
• Employment – What explains variation in wages as a share of GDP internationally? What can countries do to combat low pay without causing unemployment in sectors that cannot move abroad?
• Health, well-being and inclusion – What is the nature and extent of poverty among those who do not, or cannot, access the safety net when they need it? What are the health risks associated with poor-quality work (low paid, insecure, poorly regulated etc) for individuals or households in poverty?
• Markets, service and the cost of living – What transport measures and interventions have the greatest negative/positive impact on poverty? What is the impact of up-front charging in public services on people in poverty?
• Place and housing – What is the effect of housing-related welfare changes on people and places in poverty?
• Tax, benefits and inequality – What would the impacts on poverty be of different models of more contributory benefit schemes? How can the effect on poverty of issues of diversity, such as ethnicity, disability, age, gender, sexual orientation or religion, be better understood and addressed? What relevance does inequality in the top half of the income distribution have for the reduction of poverty?
• Policy, power and agency – What forms of institutional structures, processes and reforms enable people living in poverty to hold state and non-state actors to account?
• The bigger picture – What are the most cost-effective interventions to prevent poverty over the life course? What differentiates the effects of poverty on men and women in terms of the impact on both their own quality of life and that of their families? Considering how much money has been spent on poverty alleviation, why has it not had more effect?

Source : William Sutherland et al., 100 Questions: Identifying Research Priorities for Poverty Prevention and Reduction , Joseph Rowntree Foundation Links :  Report | JRF blog post

Tweet this page

• Policy Briefs
• Executive Committee
• Emeriti Faculty
• UC Network on Child Health, Poverty, and Public Policy
• Visting Graduate Scholars
• Media Mentions
• Center Updates

Contact the Center

• for Research Affiliates
• for Graduate Students
• Visiting Faculty Scholars
• External Opportunities
• The Non-traditional Safety Net: Health & Education
• Labor Markets & Poverty
• Children & Intergenerational Transmission of Poverty
• Immigration & Poverty
• Other Activities
• Past Events
• Policy Briefs Short summaries of our research
• Poverty Facts
• Employment, Earnings and Inequality
• Increasing College Access and Success for Low Income Students
• American Poverty Research
• Profiles in Poverty Research
• Government Agencies
• Other Poverty Centers

Primary Research Areas

Research on the non-traditional safety net: health & education.

The World Bank Group is committed to fighting poverty in all its dimensions. We use the latest data, evidence and analysis to help countries develop policies to improve people's lives, with a focus on the poorest and most vulnerable.

Around 700 million people live on less than $2.15 per day, the extreme poverty line. Extreme poverty remains concentrated in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, fragile and conflict-affected areas, and rural areas.

After decades of progress, the pace of global poverty reduction began to slow by 2015, in tandem with subdued economic growth. The Sustainable Development Goal of ending extreme poverty by 2030 remains out of reach.

Global poverty reduction was dealt a severe blow by the COVID-19 pandemic and a series of major shocks during 2020-22, causing three years of lost progress. Low-income countries were most impacted and have yet to recover. In 2022, a total of 712 million people globally were living in extreme poverty, an increase of 23 million people compared to 2019. 

We cannot reduce poverty and inequality without also addressing intertwined global challenges, including slow economic growth, fragility and conflict, and climate change.

Climate change is hindering poverty reduction and is a major threat going forward. The lives and livelihoods of poor people are the most vulnerable to climate-related risks.

Millions of households are pushed into, or trapped in, poverty by natural disasters every year. Higher temperatures are already reducing productivity in Africa and Latin America, and will further depress economic growth, especially in the world’s poorest regions.

Eradicating poverty requires tackling its many dimensions. Countries cannot adequately address poverty without also improving people’s well-being in a comprehensive way, including through more equitable access to health, education, and basic infrastructure and services, including digital.

Policymakers must intensify efforts to grow their economies in a way that creates high quality jobs and employment, while protecting the most vulnerable.

Jobs and employment are the surest way to reduce poverty and inequality. Impact is further multiplied in communities and across generations by empowering women and girls, and young people.

Last Updated: Apr 02, 2024

Closing the gaps between policy aspiration and attainment

Too often, there is a wide gap between policies as articulated and their attainment in practice—between what citizens rightfully expect, and what they experience daily. Policy aspirations can be laudable, but there is likely to be considerable variation in the extent to which they can be realized, and in which groups benefit from them. For example, at the local level, those who have the least influence in a community might not be able to access basic services. It is critical to forge implementation strategies that can rapidly and flexibly respond to close the gaps.

Enhancing learning, improving data

From information gathered in household surveys to pixels captured by satellite images, data can inform policies and spur economic activity, serving as a powerful weapon in the fight against poverty. More data is available today than ever before, yet its value is largely untapped. Data is also a double-edged sword, requiring a social contract that builds trust by protecting people against misuse and harm, and works toward equal access and representation.

Investing in preparedness and prevention

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that years of progress in reducing poverty can quickly disappear when a crisis strikes. Prevention measures often have low political payoff, with little credit given for disasters averted. Over time, populations with no lived experience of calamity can become complacent, presuming that such risks have been eliminated or can readily be addressed if they happen. COVID-19, together with climate change and enduring conflicts, reminds us of the importance of investing in preparedness and prevention measures comprehensively and proactively.

Expanding cooperation and coordination

Contributing to and maintaining public goods require extensive cooperation and coordination. This is crucial for promoting widespread learning and improving the data-driven foundations of policymaking. It is also important for forming a sense of shared solidarity during crises and ensuring that the difficult policy choices by officials are both trusted and trustworthy.

Overall, with more than 60 percent of the world’s extreme poor living in middle-income countries, we cannot focus solely on low-income countries if we want to end extreme poverty. We need to focus on the poorest people, regardless of where they live, and work with countries at all income levels to invest in their well-being and their future.

The goal to end extreme poverty works hand in hand with the World Bank Group’s goal to promote shared prosperity. Boosting shared prosperity broadly translates into improving the welfare of the least well-off in each country and includes a strong emphasis on tackling persistent inequalities that keep people in poverty from generation to generation.

Our work at the World Bank Group is based on strong country-led programs to improve living conditions—to drive growth, raise median incomes, create jobs, fully incorporate women and young people into economies, address environmental and climate challenges, and support stronger, more stable economies for everyone.

We continue to work closely with countries to help them find the best ways to improve the lives of their least advantaged citizens.

Last Updated: Oct 17, 2023

How the Pandemic Drove Increases in Poverty | Poverty & Shared Prosperity 2022

Around the bank group.

Find out what the World Bank Group's branches are doing to reduce poverty.

STAY CONNECTED

COVID-19 Dealt a Historic Blow to Poverty Reduction

The 2022 Poverty and Prosperity Report provides the first comprehensive analysis of the pandemic’s toll on poverty in developing countries and of the role of fiscal policy in protecting vulnerable groups.

Umbrella Facility for Poverty and Equity

The Umbrella Facility for Poverty and Equity (UFPE) is the first global trust fund to support the cross-cutting poverty and equity agenda.

IDA: Our Fund for the Poorest

The International Development Association (IDA) aims to reduce poverty by providing funding for programs that boost economic growth.

As the World Bank’s behavioral sciences team within the Poverty and Equity Global Practice, eMBeD uses behavioral sciences to fight global poverty and reduce inequality.

High-Frequency Monitoring Systems to Track the Impacts of COVID-19

The World Bank and partners are monitoring the crisis and the socioeconomic impacts of COVID-19 through a series of high-frequency phone surveys.

An Adjustment to Global Poverty Lines

The World Bank uses purchasing power parities (PPPs) to estimate global poverty. With the release of 2017 PPPs, we’ll start using in Fall 2022 new poverty lines to determine the share of the world population in poverty.

Systematic Country Diagnostics

The SCD looks at issues in countries and seeks to identify barriers and opportunities for sustainable poverty reduction.

Poverty Podcast

Join us and poverty specialists as we explore the latest data and research on poverty reduction, shared prosperity, and equity around the globe in this new World Bank Group podcast series.

Correcting Course to Accelerate Poverty Reduction

Mari Pangestu, World Bank Managing Director of Development Policy and Partnerships, speaks about how we must respond to current challenges in ways that do not further impoverish the poor today and focus on creating ...

Stepping Up the Fight Against Extreme Poverty

To avert the risk of more backsliding, policymakers must put everything they can into the effort to end extreme poverty.

Additional Resources

This site uses cookies to optimize functionality and give you the best possible experience. If you continue to navigate this website beyond this page, cookies will be placed on your browser. To learn more about cookies, click here .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

The Social Consequences of Poverty: An Empirical Test on Longitudinal Data

Carina mood.

Institute for Futures Studies, Box 591, 101 31 Stockholm, Sweden

Swedish Institute for Social Research (SOFI), Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Jan O. Jonsson

Nuffield College, OX1 1NF Oxford, England, UK

Poverty is commonly defined as a lack of economic resources that has negative social consequences, but surprisingly little is known about the importance of economic hardship for social outcomes. This article offers an empirical investigation into this issue. We apply panel data methods on longitudinal data from the Swedish Level-of-Living Survey 2000 and 2010 (n = 3089) to study whether poverty affects four social outcomes—close social relations (social support), other social relations (friends and relatives), political participation, and activity in organizations. We also compare these effects across five different poverty indicators. Our main conclusion is that poverty in general has negative effects on social life. It has more harmful effects for relations with friends and relatives than for social support; and more for political participation than organizational activity. The poverty indicator that shows the greatest impact is material deprivation (lack of cash margin), while the most prevalent poverty indicators—absolute income poverty, and especially relative income poverty—appear to have the least effect on social outcomes.

Introduction

According to the most influential definitions, poverty is seen as a lack of economic resources that have negative social consequences—this is in fact a view that dominates current theories of poverty (Townsend 1979 ; Sen 1983 ; UN 1995 ), and also has a long heritage (Smith 1776 /1976). The idea is that even when people have food, clothes, and shelter, economic problems lead to a deterioration of social relations and participation. Being poor is about not being able to partake in society on equal terms with others, and therefore in the long run being excluded by fellow citizens or withdrawing from social and civic life because of a lack of economic resources, typically in combination with the concomitant shame of not being able to live a life like them (e.g., Sen 1983 ). Economic hardship affects the standard of life, consumption patterns, and leisure time activities, and this is directly or indirectly related to the possibility of making or maintaining friends or acquaintances: poverty is revealed by not having appropriate clothes, or a car; by not being able to afford vacation trips, visits to the restaurant, or hosting dinner parties (e.g., Mack and Lansley 1985 ; Callan et al. 1993 )—in short, low incomes prevent the poor from living a life in “decency” (Galbraith 1958 ).

The relational nature of poverty is also central to the social exclusion literature, which puts poverty in a larger perspective of multiple disadvantages and their interrelationships (Hills et al. 2002 , Rodgers et al. 1995 ; Room 1995 ). While there are different definitions of the social exclusion concept, the literature is characterized by a move from distributional to relational concerns (Gore 1995 ) and by an emphasis on the importance of social integration and active participation in public life. The inability of living a decent or “ordinary” social life may in this perspective erode social networks, social relations, and social participation, potentially setting off a downward spiral of misfortune (Paugam 1995 ) reinforcing disadvantages in several domains of life. This perspective on poverty and social exclusion is essentially sociological: the playing field of the private economy is social. It is ultimately about individuals’ relations with other people—not only primary social relations, with kin and friends, but extending to secondary relations reflected by participation in the wider community, such as in organizations and in political life (UN 1995 ).

Despite the fact that the social consequences of limited economic resources are central to modern perspectives on poverty and marginalization, this relation is surprisingly seldom studied empirically. Qualitative research on the poor give interesting examples on how the negative effects of poverty works, and portray the way that economic problems are transformed into social ones (Ridge and Millar 2011 ; Attree 2006 ). Such studies, however, have too small sample sizes to generalize to the population, and they cannot tell us much about the range of the problem. The (relatively few) studies that have addressed the association between poverty and social outcomes on larger scale tend to verify that the poor have worse social relations (Böhnke 2008 ; Jonsson and Östberg 2004 ; Levitas 2006 ), but Barnes et al. ( 2002 ) did not find any noteworthy association between poverty (measured as relative income poverty, using the 60 %-limit) and social relations or social isolation. Dahl et al. ( 2008 ) found no relation between poverty and friendships, but report less participation in civic organizations among the poor. All these studies have however been limited to cross-sectional data or hampered by methodological shortcomings, and therefore have not been able to address the separation of selection effects from potentially causal ones.

Our aim in this study is to make good these omissions. We use longitudinal data from the Swedish Level of Living Surveys (LNU) 2000 and 2010 to study how falling into poverty, or rising from it, is associated with outcomes in terms of primary and secondary social relations, including participation in civil society. These panel data make it possible to generalize the results to the Swedish adult population (19–65 in 2000; 29–75 in 2010), to address the issue of causality, and to estimate how strong the relation between economic vulnerability and social outcomes is. Because the data provide us with the possibility of measuring poverty in several ways, we are also able to address the question using different—alternative or complementary—indicators. Poverty is measured as economic deprivation (lack of cash margin, self-reported economic problems), income poverty (absolute and relative), and long-term poverty, respectively. The primary, or core, social outcomes are indicated by having social support if needed, and by social relations with friends and relatives. We expand our analysis to secondary, or fringe, social outcomes in terms of participation in social life at large, such as in civil society: our indicators here include the participation in organizations and in political life.

Different Dimensions/Definitions of Poverty

In modern welfare states, the normal take on the issue of poverty is to regard it as the relative lack of economic resources, that is, to define the poor in relation to their fellow citizens in the same country at the same time. Three approaches dominate the scholarly literature today. The first takes as a point of departure the income deemed necessary for living a life on par with others, or that makes possible an “acceptable” living standard—defined as the goods and services judged necessary, often on the basis of consumer or household budget studies. This usage of a poverty threshold is often (somewhat confusingly) called absolute income poverty , and is most common in North America (cf. Corak 2006 for a review), although most countries have poverty lines defined for different kinds of social benefits. In Europe and in the OECD, the convention is instead to use versions of relative income poverty , defining as poor those whose incomes fall well behind the median income in the country in question (European Union using 60 % and OECD 50 % of the median as the threshold). As an alternative to using purchasing power (as in the “absolute” measure), this relative measure defines poverty by income inequality in the bottom half of the income distribution (Atkinson et al. 2002 ; OECD 2008 ).

The third approach argues that income measures are too indirect; poverty should instead be indicated directly by the lack of consumer products and services that are necessary for an acceptable living standard (Mack and Lansley 1985 ; Ringen 1988 ; Townsend 1979 ). This approach often involves listing a number of possessions and conditions, such as having a car, washing machine, modern kitchen; and being able to dine out sometimes, to have the home adequately heated and mended, to have sufficient insurances, and so on. An elaborate version includes information on what people in general see as necessities, what is often termed “consensual” poverty (e.g., Mack and Lansley 1985 ; Gordon et al. 2000 ; Halleröd 1995 ; van den Bosch 2001 ). Other direct indicators include the ability to cover unforeseen costs (cash margin) and subjective definitions of poverty (e.g., van den Bosch 2001 ). The direct approach to poverty has gained in popularity and measures of economic/material deprivation and consensual poverty are used in several recent and contemporary comparative surveys such as ECHP (Whelan et al. 2003 ) and EU-SILC (e.g., UNICEF 2012 ; Nolan and Whelan 2011 ).

It is often pointed out that, due to the often quite volatile income careers of households, the majority of poverty episodes are short term and the group that is identified as poor in the cross-section therefore tends to be rather diluted (Bane and Ellwood 1986 ; Duncan et al. 1993 ). Those who suffer most from the downsides of poverty are, it could be argued, instead the long-term, persistent, or chronically poor, and there is empirical evidence that those who experience more years in poverty also are more deprived of a “common lifestyle” (Whelan et al. 2003 ). Poverty persistence has been defined in several ways, such as having spent a given number of years below a poverty threshold, or having an average income over a number of years that falls under the poverty line (e.g., Duncan and Rodgers 1991 ; Rodgers and Rodgers 1993 ). The persistently poor can only be detected with any precision in longitudinal studies, and typically on the basis of low incomes, as data covering repeated measures of material deprivation are uncommon.

For the purposes of this study, it is not essential to nominate the best or most appropriate poverty measure. The measures outlined above, while each having some disadvantage, all provide plausible theoretical grounds for predicting negative social outcomes. Low incomes, either in “absolute” or relative terms, may inhibit social activities and participation because these are costly (e.g., having decent housing, needing a car, paying membership fees, entrance tickets, or new clothes). Economic deprivation, often indicated by items or habits that are directly relevant to social life, is also a valid representation of a lack of resources. Lastly, to be in long-term poverty is no doubt a worse condition than being in shorter-term poverty.

It is worth underlining that we see different measures of poverty as relevant indicators despite the fact that the overlap between them often is surprisingly small (Bradshaw and Finch 2003 ). The lack of overlap is not necessarily a problem, as different people may have different configurations of economic problems but share in common many of the experiences of poverty—experiences, we argue, that are (in theory at least) all likely to lead to adverse social outcomes. Whether this is the case or not is one of the questions that we address, but if previous studies on child poverty are of any guidance, different definitions of poverty may show surprisingly similar associations with a number of outcomes (Jonsson and Östberg 2004 ).

What are the Likely Social Consequences of Poverty?

We have concluded that poverty is, according to most influential poverty definitions, manifested in the social sphere. This connects with the idea of Veblen ( 1899 ) of the relation between consumption and social status. What you buy and consume—clothes, furniture, vacation trips—in part define who you are, which group you aspire to belong to, and what view others will have of you. Inclusion into and exclusion from status groups and social circles are, in this view, dependent on economic resources as reflected in consumption patterns. While Veblen was mostly concerned about the rich and their conspicuous consumption, it is not difficult to transfer these ideas to the less fortunate: the poor are under risk of exclusion, of losing their social status and identity, and perhaps also, therefore, their friends. It is however likely that this is a process that differs according to outcome, with an unknown time-lag.

If, as outlined above, we can speak of primary and secondary social consequences, the former should include socializing with friends, but also more intimate relations. Our conjecture is that the closer the relation, the less affected is it by poverty, simply because intimate social bonds are characterized by more unconditional personal relations, typically not requiring costs to uphold.

When it comes to the secondary social consequences, we move outside the realm of closer interpersonal relations to acquaintances and the wider social network, and to the (sometimes relatively anonymous) participation in civil or political life. This dimension of poverty lies at the heart of the social exclusion perspective, which strongly emphasizes the broader issues of societal participation and civic engagement, vital to democratic societies. It is also reflected in the United Nation’s definition, following the Copenhagen summit in 1995, where “overall poverty” in addition to lack of economic resources is said to be “…characterized by lack of participation in decision-making and in civil, social, and cultural life” (UN 1995 , p. 57). Poverty may bring about secondary social consequences because such participation is costly—as in the examples of travel, need for special equipment, or membership fees—but also because of psychological mechanisms, such as lowered self-esteem triggering disbelief in civic and political activities, and a general passivity leading to decreased organizational and social activities overall. If processes like these exist there is a risk of a “downward spiral of social exclusion” where unemployment leads to poverty and social isolation, which in turn reduce the chances of re-gaining a footing in the labour market (Paugam 1995 ).

What theories of poverty and social exclusion postulate is, in conclusion, that both what we have called primary and secondary social relations will be negatively affected by economic hardship—the latter supposedly more than the former. Our strategy in the following is to test this basic hypothesis by applying multivariate panel-data analyses on longitudinal data. In this way, we believe that we can come further than previous studies towards estimating causal effects, although, as is the case in social sciences, the causal relation must remain preliminary due to the nature of observational data.

Data and Definitions

We use the two most recent waves of the Swedish Level-of-living Survey, conducted in 2000 and 2010 on random (1/1000) samples of adult Swedes, aged 18–75. 1 The attrition rate is low, with 84 % of panel respondents remaining from 2000 to 2010. This is one of the few data sets from which we can get over-time measures of both poverty and social outcomes for a panel that is representative of the adult population (at the first time point, t 0 )—in addition, there is annual income information from register data between the waves. The panel feature obviously restricts the age-groups slightly (ages 19–65 in 2000; 29–75 in 2010), the final number of analyzed cases being between 2995 and 3144, depending on the number of missing cases on the respective poverty measure and social outcome variable. For ease of interpretation and comparison of effect sizes, we have constructed all social outcome variables and poverty variables to be dichotomous (0/1). 2

In constructing poverty variables, we must balance theoretical validity with the need to have group sizes large enough for statistical analysis. For example, we expand the absolute poverty measure to include those who received social assistance any time during the year. As social assistance recipients receive this benefit based on having an income below a poverty line that is similar to the one we use, this seems justifiable. In other cases, however, group sizes are small but we find no theoretically reasonable way of making the variables more inclusive, meaning that some analyses cannot be carried out in full detail.

Our income poverty measures are based on register data and are thus free from recall error or misreporting, but—as the proponents of deprivation measures point out—income poverty measures are indirect measures of hardship. The deprivation measure is more direct, but self-reporting always carries a risk of subjectivity in the assessment. To the extent that changes in one’s judgment of the economic situation depend on changes in non-economic factors that are also related to social relations, the deprivation measure will give upwardly biased estimates. 3 As there is no general agreement about whether income or deprivation definitions are superior, our use of several definitions is a strength because the results will give an overall picture that is not sensitive to potential limitations in any one measure. In addition, we are able to see whether results vary systematically across commonly used definitions.

Poverty Measures

• Cash margin whether the respondent can raise a given sum of money in a week, if necessary (in 2000, the sum was 12,000 SEK; in 2010, 14,000 SEK, the latter sum corresponding to approximately 1600 Euro, 2200 USD, or 1400 GBP in 2013 currency rates). For those who answer in the affirmative, there is a follow-up question of how this can be done: by (a) own/household resources, (b) borrowing.
• Economic crisis Those who claim that they have had problems meeting costs for rent, food, bills, etc. during the last 12 months (responded “yes” to a yes/no alternative).
• Absolute poverty is defined as either (a) having a disposable family income below a poverty threshold or (b) receiving social assistance, both assessed in 1999 (for the survey 2000) or 2009 (for the survey 2010). The poverty line varies by family type/composition according to a commonly used calculation of household necessities (Jansson 2000 ). This “basket” of goods and services is intended to define an acceptable living standard, and was originally constructed for calculating an income threshold for social assistance, with addition of estimated costs for housing and transport. The threshold is adjusted for changes in the Consumer Price Index, using 2010 as the base year. In order to get analyzable group sizes, we classify anyone with an income below 1.25 times this threshold as poor. Self-employed are excluded because their nominal incomes are often a poor indicator of their economic standard.
• Deprived and income poor A combination of the indicator of economic deprivation and the indicator of absolute poverty. The poor are defined as those who are economically deprived and in addition are either absolute income-poor or have had social assistance some time during the last calendar year.
• Long - term poor are defined as those interviewed in 2010 (2000) who had an equivalized disposable income that fell below the 1.25 absolute poverty threshold (excluding self-employed) or who received social assistance in 2009 (1999), and who were in this situation for at least two of the years 2000–2008 (1990–1998). The long-term poor (coded 1) are contrasted to the non-poor (coded 0), excluding the short-term poor (coded missing) in order to distinguish whether long-term poverty is particularly detrimental (as compared to absolute poverty in general).
• Relative poverty is defined, according to the EU standard, as having a disposable equivalized income that is lower than 60 % of the median income in Sweden the year in question (EU 2005). 4 As for absolute poverty, this variable is based on incomes the year prior to the survey year. Self-employed are excluded.

Social and Participation Outcomes

Primary (core) social relations.

• Social support The value 1 (has support) is given to those who have answered in the positive to three questions about whether one has a close friend who can help if one (a) gets sick, (b) needs someone to talk to about troubles, or (c) needs company. Those who lack support in at least one of these respects are coded 0 (lack of support).
• Frequent social relations This variable is based on four questions about how often one meets (a) relatives and (b) friends, either (i) at ones’ home or (ii) at the home of those one meets, with the response set being “yes, often”, “sometimes”, and “no, never”. Respondents are defined as having frequent relations (1) if they have at least one “often” of the four possible and no “never”, 5 and 0 otherwise.

Secondary (fringe) Social Relations/Participation

• Political participation : Coded 1 (yes) if one during the last 12 months actively participated (held an elected position or was at a meeting) in a trade union or a political party, and 0 (no) otherwise. 6
• Organizational activity : Coded 1 (yes) if one is a member of an organization and actively participate in its activities at least once in a year, and 0 (no) otherwise.

Control Variables

• Age (in years)
• Educational qualifications in 2010 (five levels according to a standard schema used by Statistics Sweden (1985), entered as dummy variables)
• Civil status distinguishes between single and cohabiting/married persons, and is used as a time-varying covariate (TVC) where we register any changes from couple to single and vice versa.
• Immigrant origin is coded 1 if both parents were born in any country outside Sweden, 0 otherwise.
• Labour market status is also used as a TVC, with four values indicating labour market participation (yes/no) in 2000 and 2010, respectively.
• Global self - rated health in 2000, with three response alternatives: Good, bad, or in between. 7

Table  1 shows descriptive statistics for the 2 years we study, 2000 and 2010 (percentages in the upper panel; averages, standard deviations, max and min values in the lower panel). Recall that the sample is longitudinal with the same respondents appearing in both years. This means, naturally, that the sample ages 10 years between the waves, the upper age limit being pushed up from 65 to 75. Both the change over years and the ageing of the sample have repercussions for their conditions: somewhat more have poor health, for example, fewer lack social support but more lack frequent social relations, and more are single in 2010 (where widows are a growing category). The group has however improved their economic conditions, with a sizeable reduction in poverty rates. Most of the changes are in fact period effects, and it is particularly obvious for the change in poverty—in 2000 people still suffered from the deep recession in Sweden that begun in 1991 and started to turn in 1996/97 (Jonsson et al. 2010 ), while the most recent international recession (starting in 2008/09) did not affect Sweden that much.

Table 1

Descriptive statistics of dependent and independent variables in the LNU panel

N for variables used as change variables pertains to non-missing observations in both 2000 and 2010

The overall decrease in poverty masks changes that our respondents experienced between 2000 and 2010: Table  2 reveals these for the measure of economic deprivation, showing the outflow (row) percentages and the total percentages (and the number of respondents in parentheses). It is evident that there was quite a lot of mobility out of poverty between the years (61 % left), but also a very strong relative risk of being found in poverty in 2010 among those who were poor in 2000 (39 vs. 5 % of those who were non-poor in 2000). Of all our respondents, the most common situation was to be non-poor both years (81 %), while few were poor on both occasions (6 %). Table  2 also demonstrates some small cell numbers: 13.3 % of the panel (9.4 % + 3.9 %), or a good 400 cases, changed poverty status, and these cases are crucial for identifying our models. As in many panel studies based on survey data, this will inevitably lead to some problems with large standard errors and difficulties in arriving at statistically significant and precise estimates; but to preview the findings, our results are surprisingly consistent all the same.

Table 2

Mobility in poverty (measured as economic deprivation) in Sweden between 2000 and 2010

Outflow percentage (row %), total percentage, and number of cases (in parentheses). LNU panel 2000–2010

We begin with showing descriptive results of how poverty is associated with our outcome variables, using the economic deprivation measure of poverty. 8 Figure  1 confirms that those who are poor have worse social relationships and participate less in political life and in organizations. Poverty is thus connected with both primary and secondary social relations.

The relation between poverty (measured as economic deprivation) and social relations/participation in Sweden, LNU 2010. N = 5271

The descriptive picture in Fig.  1 does not tell us anything about the causal nature of the relation between poverty and social outcomes, only that such a relation exists, and that it is in the predicted direction: poor people have weaker social relations, less support, and lower levels of political and civic participation. Our task now is to apply more stringent statistical models to test whether the relation we have uncovered is likely to be of a causal nature. This means that we must try to rid the association of both the risk for reverse causality—that, for example, a weaker social network leads to poverty—and the risk that there is a common underlying cause of both poverty and social outcomes, such as poor health or singlehood.

The Change Model

First, as we have panel data, we can study the difference in change across two time-points T (called t 0 and t 1 , respectively) in an outcome variable (e.g., social relations), between groups (i.e. those who changed poverty status versus those who did not). The respondents are assigned to either of these groups on the grounds of entering or leaving poverty; in the first case, one group is non-poor at t 0 but experiences poverty at t 1 , and the change in this group is compared to the group consisting of those who are non-poor both at t 0 and t 1 . The question in focus then is: Do social relations in the group entering poverty worsen in relation to the corresponding change in social relations in the group who remains non-poor? Because we have symmetric hypotheses of the effect of poverty on social outcomes—assuming leaving poverty has positive consequences similar to the negative consequences of entering poverty—we also study whether those who exit poverty improve their social outcomes as compared to those remaining poor. We ask, that is, not only what damage falling into poverty might have for social outcomes, but also what “social gains” could be expected for someone who climbs out of poverty.

Thus, in our analyses we use two different “change groups”, poverty leavers and poverty entrants , and two “comparison groups”, constantly poor and never poor , respectively. 9 The setup comparing the change in social outcomes for those who change poverty status and those who do not is analogous to a so-called difference-in-difference design, but as the allocation of respondents to comparison groups and change groups in our data cannot be assumed to be random (as with control groups and treatment groups in experimental designs), we take further measures to approach causal interpretations.

Accounting for the Starting Value of the Dependent Variable

An important indication of the non-randomness of the allocation to the change and comparison groups is that their average values of the social outcomes (i.e. the dependent variable) at t 0 differ systematically: Those who become poor between 2000 and 2010 have on average worse social outcomes already in 2000 than those who stay out of poverty. Similarly, those who stay in poverty both years have on average worse social outcomes than those who have exited poverty in 2010. In order to further reduce the impact of unobserved variables, we therefore make all comparisons of changes in social outcomes between t 0 and t 1 for fixed t 0 values of both social outcome and poverty status.

As we use dichotomous outcome variables, we get eight combinations of poverty and outcome states (2 × 2 × 2 = 8), and four direct strategic comparisons:

• Poverty leavers versus constantly poor, positive social outcome in 2000 , showing if those who exit poverty have a higher chance of maintaining the positive social outcome than those who stay in poverty
• Poverty leavers versus constantly poor, negative social outcome in 2000 , showing if those who exit poverty have a higher chance of improvement in the social outcome than those who stay in poverty
• Poverty entrants versus never poor, positive social outcome in 2000 , showing if those who enter poverty have a higher risk of deterioration in the social outcome than those who stay out of poverty, and
• Poverty entrants versus never poor, negative social outcome in 2000 , showing if those who enter poverty have a lower chance of improvement in the social outcome.

Thus, we hold the initial social situation and poverty status fixed, letting only the poverty in 2010 vary. 10 The analytical strategy is set out in Table  3 , showing estimates of the probability to have frequent social relations in 2010, for poverty defined (as in Table  2 and Fig.  1 above) as economic deprivation.

Table 3

Per cent with frequent social relations in “comparison” and “change” groups in 2000 and 2010, according to initial value on social relations in 2000 and poverty (measured as economic deprivation) in 2000 and 2010

LNU panel 2000–2010. N = 3083

The figures in Table  3 should be read like this: 0.59 in the upper left cell means that among those who were poor neither in 2000 nor in 2010 (“never poor”, or 0–0), and who had non-frequent social relations to begin with, 59 % had frequent social relations in 2010. Among those never poor who instead started out with more frequent social relations, 90 per cent had frequent social relations in 2010. This difference (59 vs. 90) tells us either that the initial conditions were important (weak social relations can be inherently difficult to improve) or that there is heterogeneity within the group of never poor people, such as some having (to us perhaps unobserved) characteristics that support relation building while others have not.

Because our strategy is to condition on the initial situation in order to minimize the impact of initial conditions and unobserved heterogeneity, we focus on the comparisons across columns. If we follow each column downwards, that is, for a given initial social outcome (weak or not weak social relations, respectively) it is apparent that the outcome is worse for the “poverty entrants” in comparison with the “never poor” (upper three lines). Comparing the change group [those who became poor (0–1)] with the comparison group [never poor (0–0)] for those who started out with weak social relations (left column), the estimated probability of frequent social relations in 2010 is 7 % points lower for those who became poor. Among those who started out with frequent relations, those who became poor have a 17 % points lower probability of frequent relations in 2010 than those who stayed out of poverty.

If we move down Table  3 , to the three bottom lines, the change and comparison groups are now different. The comparison group is the “constantly poor” (1–1), and the change group are “poverty leavers” (1–0). Again following the columns downwards, we can see that the change group improved their social relations in comparison with the constantly poor; and this is true whether they started out with weak social relations or not. In fact, the chance of improvement for those who started off with non-frequent social relations is the most noteworthy, being 33 % units higher for those who escaped poverty than for those who did not. In sum, Table  3 suggests that becoming poor appears to be bad for social relations whereas escaping poverty is beneficial.

Expanding the Model

The model exemplified in Table  3 is a panel model that studies change across time within the same individuals, conditioning on their initial state. It does away with time-constant effects of observed and unobserved respondent characteristics, and although this is far superior to a cross-sectional model (such as the one underlying Fig.  1 ) there are still threats to causal interpretations. It is possible (if probably unusual) that permanent characteristics may trigger a change over time in both the dependent and independent variables; or, put in another way, whether a person stays in or exits poverty may be partly caused by a variable that also predicts change in the outcome (what is sometimes referred to as a violation of the “common trend assumption”). In our case, we can for example imagine that health problems in 2000 can affect who becomes poor in 2010, at t 1 , and that the same health problems can lead to a deterioration of social relations between 2000 and 2010, so even conditioning on the social relations at t 0 will not be enough. This we handle by adding control variables, attempting to condition the comparison of poor and non-poor also on sex, age, highest level of education (in 2010), immigrant status, and health (in 2000). 11

Given the set-up of our data—with 10 years between the two data-points and with no information on the precise time ordering of poverty and social outcomes at t 1 , the model can be further improved by including change in some of the control variables. It is possible, for example, that a non-poor and married respondent in 2000 divorced before 2010, triggering both poverty and reduced social relations at the time of the interview in 2010. 12 There are two major events that in this way may bias our results, divorce/separation and unemployment (because each can lead to poverty, and possibly also affect social outcomes). We handle this by controlling for variables combining civil status and unemployment in 2000 as well as in 2010. To the extent that these factors are a consequence of becoming poor, there is a risk of biasing our estimates downwards (e.g., if becoming poor increases the risk of divorce). However, as there is no way to distinguish empirically whether control variables (divorce, unemployment) or poverty changed first we prefer to report conservative estimates. 13

Throughout, we use logistic regression to estimate our models (one model for each social outcome and poverty definition). We create a dummy variable for each of the combinations of poverty in 2000, poverty in 2010 and the social outcome in 2000, and alternate the reference category in order to get the four strategic comparisons described above. Coefficients do thus express the distance between the relevant change and comparison groups. The coefficients reported are average marginal effects (AME) for a one-unit change in the respective poverty variable (i.e. going from non-poor to poor and vice versa), which are straightforwardly interpretable as percentage unit differences and (unlike odds ratios or log odds ratios) comparable across models and outcomes (Mood 2010 ).

Regression Results

As detailed above, we use changes over time in poverty and social outcomes to estimate the effects of interest. The effect of poverty is allowed to be heterogeneous, and is assessed through four comparisons of the social outcome in 2010 (Y 1 ):

• Those entering poverty relative to those in constant non-poverty (P 01  = 0,1 vs. P 01  = 0,0) when both have favourable social outcomes at t 0 (Y 0  = 1)
• Those exiting poverty relative to those in constant poverty (P 01  = 1,0 vs. P 01  = 1,1) when both have favourable social outcomes at t 0 (Y 0  = 1)
• Those entering poverty relative to those in constant non-poverty (P 01  = 0,1 vs. P 01  = 0,0) when both have non-favourable social outcomes at t 0 (Y 0  = 0)
• Those exiting poverty relative to those in constant poverty (P 01  = 1,0 vs. P 01  = 1,1) when both have non-favourable social outcomes at t 0 (Y 0  = 0)

Poverty is a rare outcome, and as noted above it is particularly uncommon to enter poverty between 2000 and 2010 because of the improving macro-economic situation. Some of the social outcomes were also rare in 2000. This unfortunately means that in some comparisons we have cell frequencies that are prohibitively small, and we have chosen to exclude all comparisons involving cells where N < 20.

The regression results are displayed in Table  4 . To understand how the estimates come to be, consider the four in the upper left part of the Table (0.330, 0.138, −0.175 and −0.065), reflecting the effect of poverty, measured as economic deprivation, on the probability of having frequent social relations. Because these estimates are all derived from a regression without any controls, they are identical (apart from using three decimal places) to the percentage comparisons in Table  3 (0.33, 0.14, −0.17, −0.07), and can be straightforwardly interpreted as average differences in the probability of the outcome in question. From Table  4 it is clear that the three first differences are all statistically significant, whereas the estimate −0.07 is not (primarily because those who entered poverty in 2010 and had infrequent social relations in 2000 is a small group, N = 25).

Table 4

Average marginal effects (from logistic regression) of five types of poverty (1–5) on four social outcomes (A-D) comparing those with different poverty statuses in 2000 and 2010 and conditioning on the starting value of the social outcome (in 2000)

Right columns control for sex, education, age, immigrant status, health in 2000, civil status change between 2000 and 2010, and unemployment change between 2000 and 2010. P values in parentheses. Excluded estimates involve variable categories with N < 20. Shaded cells are in hypothesized direction, bold estimates are statistically significant ( P  < 0.05). N in regressions: 1A: 3075; 1B: 3073; 1C: 3075; 1D: 3069; 2A: 3144; 2B: 3137; 2C: 3144; 2D: 3130; 3A: 3074, 3B: 3072; 3C: 3074; 3D: 3068; 4A: 2995; 4B: 2988; 4C: 2995; 4D: 2981; 5A: 3128; 5B: 3121; 5C: 3128; 5D: 3114

In the column to the right, we can see what difference the controls make: the estimates are reduced, but not substantially so, and the three first differences are still statistically significant.

The estimates for each social outcome, reflecting the four comparisons described above, support the hypothesis of poverty affecting social relations negatively (note that the signs of the estimates should differ in order to do so, the upper two being positive as they reflect an effect of the exit from poverty, and the lower two being negative as they reflect an effect of entering poverty). We have indicated support for the hypothesis in Table  4 by shading the estimates and standard errors for estimates that go in the predicted direction.

Following the first two columns down, we can see that there is mostly support for the hypothesis of a negative effect of poverty, but when controlling for other variables, the effects on social support are not impressive. In fact, if we concentrate on each social outcome (i.e., row-wise), one conclusion is that, when controlling for confounders, there are rather small effects of poverty on the probability of having access to social support. The opposite is true for political participation, where the consistency in the estimated effects of poverty is striking.

If we instead follow the columns, we ask whether any of the definitions of poverty is a better predictor of social outcomes than the others. The measure of economic deprivation appears to be the most stable one, followed by absolute poverty and the combined deprivation/absolute poverty variable. 14 The relative poverty measure is less able to predict social outcomes: in many instances it even has the non-expected sign. Interestingly, long-term poverty (as measured here) does not appear to have more severe negative consequences than absolute poverty in general.

Because some of our comparison groups are small, it is difficult to get high precision in the estimates, efficiency being a concern particularly in view of the set of control variables in Table  4 . Only 14 out of 62 estimates in models with controls are significant and in the right direction. Nonetheless, with 52 out of 62 estimates in these models having the expected sign, we believe that the hypothesis of a negative effect of poverty on social outcomes receives quite strong support.

Although control variables are not shown in the table, one thing should be noted about them: The reduction of coefficients when including control variables is almost exclusively driven by changes in civil status. 15 The time constant characteristics that are included are cross-sectionally related to both poverty and social outcomes, but they have only minor impacts on the estimated effects of poverty. This suggests that the conditioning on prior values of the dependent and independent variables eliminates much time invariant heterogeneity, which increases the credibility of estimates.

Conclusions

We set out to test a fundamental, but rarely questioned assumption in dominating definitions of poverty: whether shortage of economic resources has negative consequences for social relations and participation. By using longitudinal data from the Swedish Level-of-living Surveys 2000 and 2010, including repeated measures of poverty (according to several commonly used definitions) and four social outcome variables, we are able to come further than previous studies in estimating the relation between poverty and social outcomes: Our main conclusion is that there appears to be a causal relation between them.

Panel models suggest that falling into poverty increases the risk of weakening social relations and decreasing (civic and political) participation. Climbing out of poverty tends to have the opposite effects, a result that strengthens the interpretation of causality. The sample is too small to estimate the effect sizes with any precision, yet they appear to be substantial, with statistically significant estimates ranging between 5 and 21 % units.

While these findings are disquieting insofar as poverty goes, our results also suggest two more positive results. First, the negative effects of poverty appear to be reversible: once the private economy recovers, social outcomes improve. Secondly, the negative consequences are less for the closest social relations, whether there is someone there in cases of need (sickness, personal problems, etc.). This is in line with an interpretation of such close relations being unconditional: our nearest and dearest tend to hang on to us also in times of financial troubles, which may bolster risks for social isolation and psychological ill-being,

Our finding of negative effects of poverty on civic and political participation relates to the fears of a “downward spiral of social exclusion”, as there is a risk that the loss of less intimate social relations shrinks social networks and decreases the available social capital in terms of contacts that can be important for outcomes such as finding a job (e.g., Lin 2001 ; Granovetter 1974 ). However, Gallie et al. ( 2003 ) found no evidence for any strong impact of social isolation on unemployment, suggesting that the negative effects on social outcomes that we observe are unlikely to lead to self-reinforcement of poverty. Nevertheless, social relations are of course important outcomes in their own right, so if they are negatively affected by poverty it matters regardless of whether social relations in turn are important for other outcomes. Effects on political and civic participation are also relevant in themselves beyond individuals’ wellbeing, as they suggest a potentially democratic problem where poor have less of a voice and less influence on society than others.

Our results show the merits of our approach, to study the relation between poverty and social outcomes longitudinally. The fact that the poor have worse social relations and lower participation is partly because of selection. This may be because the socially isolated, or those with a weaker social network, more easily fall into poverty; or it can be because of a common denominator, such as poor health or social problems. But once we have stripped the analysis of such selection effects, we also find what is likely to be a causal relation between poverty and social relations. However, this effect of poverty on social outcomes, in turn, varies between different definitions of poverty. Here it appears that economic deprivation, primarily indicated by the ability of raising money with short notice, is the strongest predictor of social outcomes. Income poverty, whether in absolute or (particularly) relative terms, are weaker predictors of social outcomes, which is interesting as they are the two most common indicators of poverty in existing research.

Even if we are fortunate to have panel data at our disposal, there are limitations in our analyses that render our conclusions tentative. One is that we do not have a random allocation to the comparison groups at t 0 ; another that there is a 10-year span between the waves that we analyze, and both poverty and social outcomes may vary across this time-span. We have been able to address these problems by conditioning on the outcome at t 0 and by controlling for confounders, but in order to perform more rigorous tests future research would benefit from data with a more detailed temporal structure, and preferably with an experimental or at least quasi-experimental design.

Finally, our analyses concern Sweden, and given the position as an active welfare state with a low degree of inequality and low poverty rates, one can ask whether the results are valid also for other comparable countries. While both the level of poverty and the pattern of social relations differ between countries (for policy or cultural reasons), we believe that the mechanisms linking poverty and social outcomes are of a quite general kind, especially as the “costs for social participation” can be expected to be relative to the general wealth of a country—however, until comparative longitudinal data become available, this must remain a hypothesis for future research.

1 http://www.sofi.su.se/english/2.17851/research/three-research-departments/lnu-level-of-living .

2 We have tested various alternative codings and the overall pattern of results in terms of e.g., direction of effects and differences across poverty definitions are similar, but more difficult to present in an accessible way.

3 Our deprivation questions are however designed to reduce the impact of subjectivity by asking, e.g., about getting a specified sum within a specified time (see below).

4 In the equivalence scale, the first adult gets a weight of one, the second of 0.6, and each child gets a weight of 0.5.

5 We have also tried using single indicators (either a/b or i/ii) without detecting any meaningful difference between them. One would perhaps have assumed that poverty would be more consequential for having others over to one’s own place, but the absence of support for this can perhaps be understood in light of the strong social norm of reciprocity in social relations.

6 We have refrained from using information on voting and membership in trade unions and political parties, because these indicators do not capture the active, social nature of civic engagement to the same extent as participation in meetings and the holding of positions.

7 We have also estimated models with a more extensive health variable, a s ymptom index , which sums responses to 47 questions about self-reported health symptoms. However, this variable has virtually zero effects once global self-rated health is controlled, and does not lead to any substantive differences in other estimates. Adding the global health measure and the symptom index as TVC had no effect either.

8 Using the other indicators of poverty yields very similar results, although for some of those the difference between poor and non-poor is smaller.

9 We call these comparison groups ”never poor” and ”constantly poor” for expository purposes, although their poverty status pertains only to the years 2000 and 2010, i.e., without information on the years in between.

10 With this design we allow different effects of poverty on improvement versus deterioration of the social outcome. We have also estimated models with a lagged dependent variable, which constrains the effects of poverty changes to be of the same size for deterioration as for improvement of the social outcome. Conclusions from that analysis are roughly a weighted average of the estimates for deterioration and improvement that we report. As our analyses suggest that effects of poverty differ in size depending on the value of the lagged dependent variable (the social outcome) our current specification gives a more adequate representation of the process.

11 We have also tested models with a wider range of controls for, e.g., economic and social background (i.e. characteristics of the respondent’s parents), geography, detailed family type and a more detailed health variable, but none of these had any impact on the estimated poverty effects.

12 It is also possible that we register reverse causality, namely if worsening social outcomes that occur after t 0 lead to poverty at t 1 . This situation is almost inevitable when using panel data with no clear temporal ordering of events occurring between waves. However, reverse causality strikes us, in this case, as theoretically implausible.

13 We have also estimated models controlling for changes in health, which did not change the results.

14 If respondents’ judgments of the deprivation questions (access to cash margin and ability to pay rent, food, bills etc.) change due to non-economic factors that are related to changes in social relations, the better predictive capacity of the deprivation measure may be caused by a larger bias in this measure than in the (register-based) income measures.

15 As mentioned above, this variable may to some extent be endogenous (i.e., a mediator of the poverty effect rather than a confounder), in which case we get a downward bias of estimates.

Contributor Information

Carina Mood, Phone: +44-8-402 12 22, Email: [email protected] .

Jan O. Jonsson, Phone: +44 1865 278513, Email: [email protected] .

• Atkinson AB, Cantillon B, Marlier E, Nolan B. Social indicators: The EU and social inclusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Attree P. The social costs of child poverty: A systematic review of the qualitative evidence. Children and Society. 2006; 20 :54–66. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bane MJ, Ellwood DT. Slipping into and out of Poverty: The Dynamics of Spells. Journal of Human Resources. 1986; 21 :1–23. doi: 10.2307/145955. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnes M, Heady C, Middleton S, Millar J, Papadopoulos F, Room G, Tsakloglou P. Poverty and social exclusion in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Böhnke P. Are the poor socially integrated? The link between poverty and social support in different welfare regimes. Journal of European Social Policy. 2008; 18 :133–150. doi: 10.1177/0958928707087590. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bradshaw J, Finch N. Overlaps in dimensions of poverty. Journal of Social Policy. 2003; 32 :513–525. doi: 10.1017/S004727940300713X. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Callan T, Nolan B, Whelan CT. Resources, deprivation, and the measurement of poverty. Journal of Social Policy. 1993; 22 :141–172. doi: 10.1017/S0047279400019280. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Corak M. Principles and practicalities for measuring child poverty in the rich countries. International Social Security Review. 2006; 59 :3–36. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-246X.2006.00237.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dahl E, Flotten T, Lorentzen T. Poverty dynamics and social exclusion: An analysis of Norwegian panel data. Journal of Social Policy. 2008; 37 :231–249. doi: 10.1017/S0047279407001729. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duncan GJ, Gustafsson B, Hauser R, Schmauss G, Messinger H, Muffels R, Nolan B, Ray J-C. Poverty dynamics in eight countries. Journal of Population Economics. 1993; 6 :215–234. doi: 10.1007/BF00163068. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duncan GJ, Rodgers W. Has children’s poverty become more persistent? American Sociological Review. 1991; 56 :538–550. doi: 10.2307/2096273. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Galbraith J. The affluent society. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin; 1958. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gallie D, Paugam S, Jacobs S. Unemployment, poverty and social isolation: Is there a vicious cycle of social exclusion? European Societies. 2003; 5 :1–32. doi: 10.1080/1461669032000057668. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gordon D, Adelman L, Ashworth K, Bradshaw J, Levitas R, Middleton S, Pantazis C, Patsios D, Payne S, Townsend P, Williams J. Poverty and social exclusion in Britain. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gore C. Introduction: Markets, citizenship and social exclusion. In: Rodgers G, Gore C, Figueiredo JB, editors. Social exclusion: Rhetoric, reality, responses. Geneva: International Labour Organization; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Granovetter, M. S. (1974). Getting a job. A study of contacts and careers . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Halleröd B. The truly poor: Direct and indirect measurement of consensual poverty in Sweden. Journal of European Social Policy. 1995; 5 :111–129. doi: 10.1177/095892879500500203. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hills J, Le Grand J, Piachaud D. Understanding social exclusion. Oxford: OUP; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jansson, K. (2000). Inkomstfördelningen under 1990-talet. In Välfärd och försörjning 2000, pp. 15–60. SOU 2000:40.
• Jonsson, J. O., Mood, C., & Bihagen, E. (2010). Fattigdomens förändring, utbredning och dynamik, Chapter 3. In Social Rapport 2010 . Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen.
• Jonsson, J. O., & Östberg, V. (2004). Resurser och levnadsförhållanden bland ekonomiskt utsatta 10-18-åringar: Analys av Barn-LNU och Barn-ULF. pp. 203–55 in Ekonomiskt utsatta barn, Socialdepartementet, Ds. 2004:41. Stockholm: Fritzes.
• Levitas R. The concept and measurement of social exclusion. In: Pantazis C, Gordon D, Levitas R, editors. Poverty and social exclusion in Britain. Bristol: Policy Press; 2006. pp. 123–162. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin, N. (2001). Social capital. A theory of social structure and action . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  
• Mack J, Lansley S. Poor Britain. London: Allen & Unwin Ltd; 1985. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mood C. Logistic regression: Why we cannot do what we think we can do and what we can do about it. European Sociological Review. 2010; 26 :67–82. doi: 10.1093/esr/jcp006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nolan B, Whelan CT. Poverty and deprivation in Europe. New York: Oxford University Press; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD . Growing unequal? Income distribution and poverty in OECD countries. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Paugam S. The spiral of precariousness: A multidimensional approach to the process of social disqualification in France. In: Room G, editor. Beyond the threshold: The measurement and analysis of social exclusion. Bristol: Policy Press; 1995. pp. 47–79. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ridge T, Millar J. Following families: Working lone-mother families and their children. Social Policy & Administration. 2011; 45 :85–97. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9515.2010.00755.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ringen S. Direct and indirect measures of poverty. Journal of Social Policy. 1988; 17 :351–365. doi: 10.1017/S0047279400016858. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodgers G, Gore C, Figueiredo JB, editors. Social exclusion: Rhetoric, reality, responses. Geneva: International Labour Organization; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodgers JR, Rodgers JL. Chronic poverty in the United States. Journal of Human Resources. 1993; 28 :25–54. doi: 10.2307/146087. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Room G, editor. Beyond the threshold: The measurement and analysis of social exclusion. Bristol: Policy Press; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sen A. Poor, relatively speaking. Oxford Economic Papers. 1983; 35 :153–169. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations (republished by R. H. Campbell and A. S. Skinner (Eds.). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976).
• Townsend P. Poverty in the United Kingdom. Harmondsworth: Penguin; 1979. [ Google Scholar ]
• van den Bosch K. Identifying the poor: Using subjective and consensual measures. Aldershot: Ashgate; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• United Nations. (1995). United nations world summit (Copenhagen) for social development. programme of action , Chapter 2. New York: United Nations.
• UNICEF. (2012). Measuring child poverty. New league tables of child poverty in the world’s rich countries. In Innocenti Report Card 10 . Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.
• Veblen T. The theory of the leisure class. New York: McMillan; 1899. [ Google Scholar ]
• Whelan CT, Layte R, Maitre B. Persistent income poverty and deprivation in the European Union: An analysis of the first three waves of the European community household panel. Journal of Social Policy. 2003; 32 :1–18. doi: 10.1017/S0047279402006864. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

100 Questions: identifying research priorities for poverty prevention and reduction

Reducing poverty is important for those affected, for society and the economy. Poverty remains entrenched in the UK, despite considerable research efforts to understand its causes and possible solutions. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, with the Centre for Science and Policy at the University of Cambridge, ran a democratic, transparent, consensual exercise involving 45 participants from government, non-governmental organisations, academia and research to identify 100 important research questions that, if answered, would help to reduce or prevent poverty. The list includes questions across a number of important themes, including attitudes, education, family, employment, heath, wellbeing, inclusion, markets, housing, taxes, inequality and power.

Related Papers

Policy & Politics

Justin Keen

Richard J White

This article explores the ways in which young people's decisions about post-compulsory education, training and employment are shaped by place, drawing on case study evidence from three deprived neighbourhoods in England. It discusses the way in which place-based social networks and attachment to place influence individuals' outlooks and how they interpret and act on the opportunities they see. While such networks and place attachment can be a source of strength in facilitating access to opportunities, they can also be a source of weakness in acting to constrain individuals to familiar choices and locations. In this way, 'subjective' geographies of opportunity may be much more limited than 'objective' geographies of opportunity. Hence it is important for policy to recognise the importance of 'bounded horizons'.

Michael Hirst , Anne Corden

Lisa Scullion

J. Poverty Soc. Justice

Toity Deave

Journal of Poverty and Social Justice

Kirsten Besemer

Stephen Sinclair , John McKendrick

Social Policy and Society

Line Nyhagen

John Hills , David Piachaud

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has supported this project as part of its programme of research and innovative development projects, which it hopes will be of value to policy makers, practitioners and service users. The facts presented and views expressed in this report are, however, ...

CASE Papers

Ruth Lister

RELATED PAPERS

Jonathan Bradshaw

Ronald McQuaid

Colin Lindsay

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management

Liam Foster

Alison Garnham

Mark Tomlinson

Cambridge Journal of Economics

Kevin Albertson , Paul Stepney

Serena Romano

Mansel Aylward

Surya Monro

Alex Nunn , Ronald McQuaid , Tim Bickerstaffe

… by National Association of Welfare Rights …

Colin Talbot

GA Williams , Mark Tomlinson

Hilary Stevens

Chris Pittman

Ian Cummins

Information, communication & …

Abigail Davis

… , communication & society

Bryony Beresford

Martin Taulbut

research.dwp.gov.uk

Peter Allmark

Richard Riddell

Glen Bramley

Judy Corlyon

Ronald McQuaid , Vanesa Fuertes

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Shoshana Pollack

alan france

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

Approaches to subjective poverty in economic and sociological research

• Martin Lačný

Poverty is a complex phenomenon which has been the subject of research across the social sciences. There have been varying approaches to defining and measuring poverty, especially with regard to research focus. In economic and sociological research, the concept of subjective poverty, which is particularly interesting in terms of psychological research into poverty, represents an alternative to the predominant objective measures of poverty. This article reviews the approaches to poverty used in economic and sociological research, paying special regard to representative approaches to subjective poverty, including subjective poverty lines and outlines the aspects relevant to psychological research into poverty.

Introduction

While there have been different approaches to and concepts for defining and measuring poverty, inferior living conditions and their serious individual and social consequences have remained dominant. The scale of poverty ranges from the imminent threat of starvation and increased risk of certain diseases, to the inability to participate in the services normally available to the rest of society. The economic concept of poverty deals with subsistence income levels. Several levels are taken into account: (1) the existential subsistence minimum, the lowest standard of living at which only the most basic living needs can be satisfied (extreme poverty line); (2) social subsistence minimum, reflecting ability to meet socially recognized needs (poverty line); (3) minimal comfort, society’s minimum level for a comfortable standard of living.

In the economic sciences, poverty is understood as a comparative concept based on the consensus of those who view the phenomenon of poverty from the outside. This is generally based on statistics ( Riegel, 2007 ).

In sociology, there are particular views of specific aspects of poverty. For example, Shildrick and Rucell (2015) describe a functionalist approach in which poverty is understood to be a consequence of circumstance. In other words, the poor share the general values of society but are unable to implement them because of low income, insufficient qualifications and so on. Lewis, Webley, and Furnham (1995) have discussed conflict theory which emphasizes that poverty inhibits the ability to fight for the distribution of scarce resources, while interaction theory underlines the stigma of poverty, because poverty is not only an economic deprivation but is involved in self-concept as well.

Gordon (1972) interpreted radical theories which distinguish the primary labour market (typically relative stability and high income) from the secondary labour market (unstable with low income), resulting from bad interaction between governments and trade unions. Townsend (1979) described the theory of minority groups and subculture theory . The former approach distinguishes between primary poverty (resulting from the death of the breadwinner, illness, injury) and secondary poverty (resulting from alcoholism, mismanagement, irregular income, etc.). Subculture theory identifies the common features of poorer segments of societies in different countries. These include values, interpersonal relationships, family and community structures, similar patterns of consumption and time spending and differences in economic, intellectual or emotional level compared with the majority of society.

Psychology has the ability to go deeper into the objective and subjective components of poverty. However, Džuka, Babinčák, Kačmárová, Mikulášková, and Martončik (2017) consider the initial state of psychological research into poverty to be an ‘open space’ in Slovakia. In other countries, research has only just started to reveal the psychological aspects of poverty and has not yet focused on a comprehensive understanding. They point out that, globally, the psychological research on poverty enjoys significant attention, especially that relating to the subjective causes and psychological consequences of poverty. The aim of this article is to review the representative approaches to subjective poverty and outline the aspects that are important for psychological research into poverty: first, the basic approaches to defining the variables for conceptualizing poverty (financial resources, capabilities and the multidimensional approach); second, the identification of objective and subjective poverty; and finally, third, subjective poverty lines and subjective sub-indicators used in poverty measures.

Income vs capabilities

In the economic research, there are two basic approaches to defining the variables for conceptualizing poverty. The first is to define poverty according to financial resources (income, wealth, consumption level, etc.) and is a conventional and widely used approach in the methodologies of the World Bank ( Ravallion, 1994 , 2010 ; Ravallion & Chen, 1997 ). Income poverty measures are taken from the utilitarian understanding of wealth, with an emphasis on individual utility as the key variable. In this context, and along with an additional set of rigorous assumptions (including the completeness of markets, the absence of externalities and public goods, the absence of increasing economies of scale, the specification of cardinal utility functions), income is seen as a measure of individual welfare as all welfare-relevant goods can be purchased on the competitive market. Income shortfalls can then be understood as economic welfare shortfalls or poverty. Most analysts are not primarily interested in short-term or life-cycle fluctuations in income. Instead, they rely on expenditure as a more stable indicator of long-term or lifetime resources and thus of welfare. There is wide agreement that household consumption or income aggregates should be normalized for cost-of-living differences, including differences in household size. However, there are different views as to how this normalization should be done. Equally, neither income nor consumption (even with seemingly appropriate normalizations) are considered sufficient for measuring welfare ( Ravallion, 2012 ). The weaknesses in this approach are mainly related to the suitability and interpretation of utility as a measure of welfare. There is also the problematic interpersonal comparability of utility for which there is no suitable empirical procedure in addition to strict cardinal utility functions ( Klasen, 2000 ).

The alternative approach is based on the idea that poverty may lie in the lack of basic benefits, basic skills or capabilities, and that some of these cannot be purchased as there is no sufficient supply in the market system ( Sen, 1992 , 1999 ). The capability approach to measuring poverty defines poor people as those who have limited freedom or chance of realizing their own lifestyles. Financial resources are but one of the means of achieving a certain level of well-being in this sense and the definition of poverty should therefore focus directly on ‘well-being outcomes’. Another argument is that in economic behaviour it is possible to identify differences in a person’s ability to convert income into utility. This multifactorial approach to defining and measuring poverty and well-being is therefore focused on observing and measuring the capabilities of individuals and households. Poverty is then defined as the inability of a person to achieve a minimum level of ‘vital capabilities’ (e.g. the inability to be healthy, inability to be rich, well dressed, have housing) [1] .

Bibi (2005) has noted that the measure of so-called self-reliant poverty (a concept which originates from Sen’s capability approach) should ultimately identify those households in greatest difficulty—those at the bottom of the distribution of capabilities-to-generate-minimum-necessary-income [2] .

On one hand, this approach overcomes multiple issues in defining poverty found in approaches based solely on financial resources—for example heterogeneity in human behaviour, the effect of public goods on individual well-being and the methodological pitfalls associated with the utilitarian calculus of utility. On the other hand, it is difficult to select the relevant skills and set the trade-offs (relative weights) across the dimensions. There is also a lack of reliable data on non-monetary variables suitable for international comparison. The selection of components is usually discussed and modified with regard to the social context in which the research is being conducted. The necessary information is collected through questionnaires (e.g. income, education, ownership of consumables, means of transport, housing, access to healthcare, access to credit). The weights of the individual components in the selection can then be derived empirically via Principal Component Analysis (PCA) or Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) ( Klasen, 2000 ).

The standardized scores for the individual components are then used to define quintiles representing a certain degree of poverty or well-being (similarly, the DHS Wealth Index has been created).

A brief summary of the discussed characteristics of both approaches can be seen in Table 1 .

Comparison of the financial resources and capability approaches to defining poverty

Source: Own

Nevertheless, as Ravallion (2012) states, recognizing that welfare is ‘multi-dimensional’ and that income is an incomplete metric does not mean we can credibly collapse multiple dimensions into a single, unidimensional space. The basic problem is that we do not know the prices for valuation. The prevailing practice is essentially to make ad hoc assumptions about welfare function (and hence the weights).

Based on the multidimensional approach to poverty , several globally used measures have been developed such as the Human Development Index (HDI), Physical Quality of Life Index (PQLI) and the Global Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI). The widely used MPI index consists of ten sub-indicators grouped into three dimensions (education, health and living standards). According to the MPI, an individual whose total weight of deprivation indicators is equal to or greater than 3 would be considered poor ( Alkire et al., 2015 ; Alkire, Roche, & Vaz, 2017 ). The MPI measures poverty on an individual level making it possible to provide a detailed overview of the spectrum of deprivation faced by the poor. It enables international comparisons between countries, regions and at the global level, as well as comparisons of poverty within ethnic groups, and urban and rural communities. Although the HDI also considers education, health and living standards, in the MPI each of these dimensions is described by more than one sub-indicator. Yet, neither the HDI nor the MPI capture the moral, emotional and spiritual dimensions of poverty.

Objective vs subjective poverty

Objective poverty is defined by factors that are not dependent on personal opinion and individuals’ perceptions. It is based on an analysis of the available socio-economic information on households or household files. In contrast to the prevailing objective approaches, the subjective concept of poverty is based on the belief that the individual is best placed to assess the urgency of his/her needs and to hierarchize his/her satisfaction in a given social reference framework. In this context, relative poverty or deprivation refers to a situation where an individual evaluates his/her life situation as unfavourable when compared to the life situation of other reference groups or persons within the same reference group.

However, neither the psychological nor economic theories of poverty offer much insight into what constitutes a relevant comparison group. Researchers therefore have to rely on some potentially strong identifying assumptions. Additionally, Clark (2018) points out the bias effect resulting from a subjective comparison of one’s situation with a reference group – namely that individuals say they are happier when they earn more, but less happy when others earn more. In their older work, Clark and Oswald (1996) analysed British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) data and showed that job satisfaction among British employees rose with the individual’s income but fell in the case that the income of the peer group (defined as other people with the same job and demographic characteristics) increased.

The subjective approach to poverty has mainly been associated with Dutch-Flemish economics (e.g. B. Van Praag, H. Deleeck). In this approach, the identification of subjective poverty is based on respondents’ answers to the question of what level of income is required to meet their basic needs. The core data is obtained from respondents’ self-assessments in sample surveys. Each respondent is asked to rate his or her economic welfare, or a broader concept such as life satisfaction or happiness, on an ordinal scale (Cantril ladder). Alternatively, the respondent provides money metrics of points on qualitative welfare scales, such as minimum income needed to make ends meet (Minimum Income Question – MIQ) ( Ravallion, 2012 ).

There are three main ways in which these subjective data are used to inform poverty measurements:

As a means of testing objective poverty lines, by regressing self-rated welfare on income normalized by the poverty line plus the variables that went into the construction of the poverty line, which should be jointly insignificant if those lines accord with subjective welfare;

To calibrate a composite welfare index using the subjective welfare regression coefficients as the weights;

To derive a poverty line in the income space, defined as the income level at which some critical level of subjective welfare is reached in expectation.

The Participatory Poverty Assessment – PPA can be considered an alternative approach to examining poverty. In this approach, poor people’s attitudes are taken into account in analysing subjective poverty and formulating strategies for reducing poverty through public policy. In the newer PPA approaches, researchers do not seek to prescribe the criteria under which poverty is assessed. Rather, they focus primarily on the perceptions of respondents and their well-being. PPA can help to identify poverty in the following ways: by detecting perceptions about trends and factors influencing poverty (e.g. uncertainty, inflation, market trends, declining environmental quality); by selecting significant welfare indicators which can be further verified using conventional research methods (e.g. uncertainty level verification); by examining trends in areas that are difficult to track using conventional quantitative methods. The benefits of a participatory approach lie above all in identifying the hidden dimensions of poverty and opportunities to analyse causality and the processes by which people become poor (i.e. the psychological causes of poverty) and how they get out of poverty ( Norton et al., 2001 ).

Tosun et al. (2018) created a different approach which was used in CUPESSE [3] to collect data on various indicators related to the concept of economic self-sufficiency . It also explores the role that families play in the journey from education to employment. In their survey, economic self-sufficiency has several objective aspects such as income independence (whether and to what extent respondents provide for themselves through paid jobs or self-employment—versus relying on their family or the state) and their housing situation. The respondents’ subjective perceptions relate to self-assessed economic conditions (to what extent during the six months prior to the interview had they been able to: 1. pay their bills by themselves, 2. afford decent housing, 3. afford extras like trips or hobbies and 4. put some money aside), and includes a subjective indicator of financial satisfaction (measured on a four-point ordinal Likert scale). Although the concept of economic self-sufficiency is not primarily about poverty, it can be used to identify a sample of respondents who are subjectively dissatisfied with their economic situation and describe the extent to which individuals are able to provide for themselves without external assistance. However, as Tosun et al. (2018) have noted, a fully independent income does not always imply a decent standard of living, let alone satisfaction with one’s economic situation.

Poverty lines

Apart from the subjective poverty lines, there are subjective sub-indicators used in poverty measures based on prevailing objective variables, which are usually used alongside objective measures in order to refine their outcomes.

When investigating developing countries, researchers define the poverty threshold on a monetary basis (most often on the basis of an absolute income, such as the income poverty range or the value of household expenditures) and use a range of other objective variables. These include the daily nutritional value of available food, type of habitation, type of access to water, type of toilet, main cooking source, main heating source, number of durable consumer goods (e.g. bicycle, telephone, radio, TV, stove, car, etc.), access to education and access to health care ( Klasen, 2000 ).

For researching satisfaction of basic needs in developed countries, there are indicators of material deprivation [4] found e.g. in the EU-SILC methodology under the material deprivation module. These include indicators such as rental arrears or delayed mortgage repayments, heating, electricity, gas or water arrears, deferred loan repayments, the ability to afford a one-week annual holiday with the family away from home, the ability to afford a meal containing meat, poultry, fish (or vegetarian equivalent) every other day, the ability to deal with unexpected expenses, ownership of a telephone, colour TV, computer, washing machine and car.

The set of variables also includes a subjective assessment of the household’s overall ability to make ends meet and an estimate of the lowest monthly income limit at which the household would be able to make ends meet. There is also a subjective assessment of the financial burden associated with total housing costs and the financial burden associated with lease purchases and loans. Variables indicating the boundary at which basic needs are met include also a subjective assessment of the quality of the physical and social environment (dwelling too dark, insufficient daylight, noise from neighbours or the street, pollution, dirt or other environmental problems, violent crimes or vandalism near the home) ( EU-SILC, 2011 ).

With regard to the complexity of such data, Annoni and Weziak-Bialowolska (2016 , p. 183) conclude that “the perfect measure of poverty in terms of economic well-being should be a combination of income, consumption and welfare”. They explain that although measuring income is not difficult, measuring consumption level and welfare is more complicated. Consequently, level of disposable income is often used as a proxy for consumption.

While risk of poverty is based on the concept of relative poverty (e.g. in the EU-SILC methodology, the at-risk-of-poverty line is defined as disposable income of below 60% of the national median equivalent disposable income), material deprivation provides an accompanying view, based on both objective and absolute criteria. Income is used as a variable in two ways: (1) to measure income distribution between households and (2) as a classification and/or substance variable in conjunction with other social indicators. In particular, it is used alongside social exclusion [5] indicators ( EU-SILC, 2013 ). Material deprivation is defined in relation to the economic conditions of the individual or household. It is the forced inability to achieve an indicative material standard that most people consider desirable or necessary for a full life. The material deprivation rate is then defined as the share of the population exposed to the forced inability to afford at least three (or four where there is a severe material deprivation rate) of a list of verified items [6] ( EU-SILC, 2015 ). Except for one isolated indicator of income poverty, a combination of this indicator and others is used.

The aggregated indicator of poverty or social exclusion (AROPE) [7] has been described by Vlačuha and Kováčová (2015) . It is based on the multidimensional approach to measuring poverty. In addition to the concept of income poverty, the indicator takes two other dimensions into account—material deprivation and exclusion from the labour market. The aggregated indicator is a combination of three sub-indicators—risk of poverty rate, material deprivation rate and low labour intensity and is defined as the number of people at risk of poverty and/or material deprivation and/or living in households with low work intensity.

The objective indicator of income poverty risk is usually supplemented by subjectively declared financial problems . The EU-SILC methodology has reported subjective testimonies of households about their ability to make ends meet (on a six-point scale, ranging from ‘very difficult’ to ‘very easy’). However, the results obtained using both indicators—objective and subjective—show very little overlap. Mysíková, Večerník and Želinský (2015) reported that the two optics are quite different, and can be referred to as ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’. It is necessary to add that the ‘objective’ calculus (at-risk-of-poverty line) is affected by the methodological approach chosen by the experts and is, ultimately, based on a political decision. On the other hand, ‘subjective’ estimations by households can be considered relatively objective as they take circumstances into account that cannot be determined from income calculation—in particular expenditure and debt burden.

Subjective poverty lines can be considered a mixture of both absolute and relative concepts. Unlike the above-mentioned subjective sub-indicators, they are based on dichotomized income variables and differ from each other in several respects.

The Leyden Poverty Line (LPL) is based on the Welfare Function of Income (WFI), which is derived from a particular survey question—the Income Evaluation Question (IEQ) [8] —and additional knowledge of the respondent’s personal characteristics ( Goedhart, Halberstadt, Kapteyn & Van Praag, 1977 ; Van Praag, Spit, & Van de Stadt, 1982 ). According to the LPL, a family is considered ‘α-poor’ if the evaluation of total family income falls below a certain level of utility α, for example 0.4 or 0.5, that is, LPL(04) and LPL(05), respectively. On the contrary, if the evaluation of the family income exceeds level α, the family is ranked among the ‘non-poor’ ( Flik & Van Praag, 1991 ). This poverty line concept makes it possible to break down the survey sample into multiple quantiles, which the other representative concept of the subjective poverty line does not (see e.g. Danisman Isik, 2018 ; Mareš & Rabušic, 1997 ; Delhausse, Luttgens, & Perelman, 1993 ).

The Subjective Poverty Line (SPL) introduced by Kapteyn, van de Geer and van de Stadt in 1985 states that families are poor if they think their incomes are not sufficient to make ends meet. This measure is based on the previously discussed Minimum Income Question (MIQ) [9] . Instead of asking about income amounts corresponding to several welfare levels, it asks for one income amount which corresponds to a specific welfare label. It is assumed to describe the boundary between being ‘poor’ and ‘non-poor’. According to the definition of the SPL, a respondent’s answer is understood as an individual’s poverty line. Ravallion (2012 , p. 9) has similarly defined the Social Subjective Poverty Line (SSPL) based on the MIQ as “the income below which people tend to think they are poor in the specific setting and above which they tend to think they are not poor”. As Flik and Van Praag (1991 , p. 321) have stated, the LPL (based on a multi-level question) seems to be theoretically superior to the SPL (based on a one-level question), as the SPL is likely to be more subject to random response fluctuations and more sensitive to varying interpretations of the one level.

One could expect that the answers to several ordered verbal labels are much more carefully selected and calibrated as the respondents have to rank several levels as opposed to being presented with just one level—make ends meet. Kapteyn, Kooreman and Willemse (1988) have pointed out that both the LPL and SPL approaches are model-based and that the responses themselves do not directly generate poverty lines. Indeed, it is necessary to estimate a model that explains inter-household variation in the responses to the survey questions. These two aspects identify two crucial methodological issues in the implementation of the SPL and LPL: the responses should measure what they are intended to measure and the model should be correctly specified and estimated. Both poverty lines depend on family composition and on the distribution of incomes and family compositions in the family’s reference group. It is also worth mentioning that one of the conditions for the existence of an SPL/SSPL is that subjective welfare is an increasing function of income, as it is invariably indicated in cross-sectional studies (see e.g. Clark, Frijters, & Shields, 2008 ; Garcia-Carro & Sanchez-Sellero, 2019 ).

The Centre for Social Policy in Antwerp has come up with its own measure called the CSP poverty line ( Deleeck, 1989 ). This is based on the Herman Deleeck question which is standardly used in a modified form also in the EU-SILC question battery. [10] The CSP method uses a small subsample of people who consider themselves to be on the margin [11] , while in both the LPL and SPL the poverty threshold is estimated based on opinions of what constitutes a poverty or non-poverty situation both for people who consider their income to be on the margin and those who view their income differently (below or above the margin). Flik and Van Praag’s reliability assessment for each of these subjective poverty lines, as measured by their standard deviation, has shown that the LPL performs best in this respect. The SPL comes next and the CSP measure ranks third ( Flik & Van Praag, 1991 ). A brief comparison of the basic characteristics of the discussed poverty lines is given in Table 2 .

Comparison of the basic characteristics of subjective poverty lines

Conclusions

According to the findings of Džuka et al. (2017) , three areas of research interest in the psychological problems of poverty have been identified: 1) research into the causes of poverty, 2) research into the psychological consequences of poverty, 3) and more recently research into the relationship between the psychological consequences of poverty and the persistence of poverty. In all cases, the way poverty is operationalized and the way the research sample of poor people is specified play an important role.

Based on our analysis of previously published scientific papers [12] , we can report that on one hand subjective data have redefined the long-standing debate on whether poverty is ‘absolute’ or ‘relative’. However, the structure of the poverty profile has turned out to be different in some respects. While objective poverty lines have often implied that larger households are poorer, this has not typically been the case in cross-sectional studies which use the subjective approach, as these tend to suggest greater economies of scale in consumption than normally assumed, at least in developing countries ( Ravallion, 2012 ). Nevertheless, it has to be taken into account that people generally only know their approximate level of income. Respondents take an estimate of their actual income as their frame of reference when answering the income evaluation and minimum income questions ( Kapteyn, Kooreman, & Willemse, 1988 ). Household income should therefore be measured twice in surveys, in order to determine the biasing effects of respondents’ systematic errors in estimating their own income (e.g. the frame-of-reference bias).

Furthermore, the reliability of the measures used to assess economic situation and the validity of the scores obtained directly depend on the problem the researcher aims to solve. For psychological research (especially that focused on the psychological consequences of poverty, or the relationship between psychological consequences and persistence in poverty), the concept of subjective poverty is particularly relevant, especially in cases where awareness of being poor affects thinking-related functions (such as the effect of poverty on working memory, self-control or attention). Depending on the research question or hypothesis, employing a subjective measure of economic situation will probably be more appropriate than addressing objective indicators. Once the researcher decides whether to employ economic, psychological or multidimensional poverty operationalization, it is of course helpful to use several measures and to properly report them in a sensitivity analysis.

However, it is also necessary to mention the long-standing scepticism amongst economists regarding subjective questions, notably when these data are used as dependent variables. The most pressing issue is thus the extent to which subjective questions are reliable, in the sense of obtaining similar answers under similar circumstances. In estimates concerning income or other gradients in subjective welfare, an attenuation bias can arise from psychological adaptation to adverse circumstances. For example, Večerník and Mysíková (2016) have pointed out that based on the social desirability argument, it is assumed households with low incomes tend to report a higher income than they actually have. On the other hand, households with a higher income are expected to make themselves ‘poorer’ in an interview situation. Income understatement usually rises with amount of income. This also applies to incomes which flow from several sources such as from multiple jobs. It has been confirmed that while earnings tend to be skewed in income reporting by household respondents, old age and other types of pension benefits do not suffer from such distortion. As a result, the income poverty of persons in households with wage earners may be overestimated in comparison with persons living in households with old aged pensioners. Angel, Heuberger and Lamei (2017) have also pointed out significant differences between estimated incomes in the Austrian EU-SILC survey data and the Austrian official register data on income. Their analysis revealed an increase in cross-sectional poverty rates for 2008– 2011 and in the longitudinal poverty rate when register data were used instead of survey data. They concluded that these changes in the poverty rate were mainly driven by the differences in employment income rather than sampling weights or other income components.

The current state of knowledge highlights the need to view poverty as a multi-causal phenomenon, and that aiming to understand its psychological causes by focusing on one dimension is a simplification. Davis and Gouws (2013) suggest that further research should take into account the current cultural context and cultural background, as well as the genetic constitution of the individual affecting his or her adaptation to the environment. Advanced analyses should therefore take into account a number of perspectives besides subjective ones, such as the impact of demographic variables (e.g. ethnicity, education, geographical location, employment) as possible causes of poverty.

Moreover, Van den Bosch et al. (1993) pointed out that both SPL and CSP assume that “minimum income” and “with some difficulty” mean the same thing to all respondents and that there is a household consensus reflecting the household’s standard of living. However, Ravallion (2012 , p. 8) claims that “one must allow for heterogeneity, such that people at the same standard of living give different answers to the subjective welfare question, or that the same person may give a different answer depending on when they are interviewed”. As such, these variations could stem from idiosyncratic ‘mood’ effects, personality traits or simply from errors. It is not the person’s stated perception of his or her welfare in an interview that is taken to be the relevant metric as this is bound to contain many factors that would not be deemed relevant. He concludes that the subjective questions are used to calibrate an interpersonally comparable welfare function based on observed covariates deemed to be relevant on a priori grounds—it is the role of these data sources in calibration that is the present focus.

Even when they have similar personalities or statistically ignorable differences, different people may apply different criteria when scaling their welfare. They have different ideas about what it means to be rich or poor, or what it means to be satisfied or dissatisfied with life. Latent heterogeneity in factors that are essentially irrelevant to welfare but influence responses to subjective welfare questions may lead us to question the implied interpersonal comparisons of welfare from subjective data.

In this respect, it may be concluded that subjective data could be used mainly to identify the weights on the dimensions of welfare for which prices are missing or unreliable and determine the poverty lines based on subjective data. From a wider point of view, as Kingdon and Knight (2006) indicate, it is possible to view subjective well-being as an encompassing concept which permits us to quantify the relevance and importance of the other approaches and their component variables.

Alkire, S., Foster, J.E., Seth, S., Santos, M.E., Roche, J.M., & Ballon, P. (2015). Multidimensional poverty measurement and analysis New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199689491.001.0001 Search in Google Scholar

Alkire, S., Roche, J., & Vaz, A. (2017). Changes over time in multidimensional poverty: Methodology and Results for 34 Countries. World Development 94, 232–249. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.01.011 Search in Google Scholar

Angel, S., Heuberger, R., & Lamei, N. (2017). Differences between household income from surveys and registers and how these affect the poverty headcount: Evidence from the Austrian SILC. Social Indicators Research 138(2). pp. 57–603. Retrieved from https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1672-7 10.1007/s11205-017-1672-7 Search in Google Scholar

Annoni, P., & Weziak-Bialowolska, D. (2016). A Measure to Target Antipoverty Policies in the European Union Regions. Applied Research in Quality of Life 11(1), 181-207. 10.1007/s11482-014-9361-z Search in Google Scholar

Bibi, S. (2005). Measuring poverty in a multidimensional perspective: A Review of Literature (November 1, 2005). PEP Working Paper No. 2005-07. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.850487 10.2139/ssrn.850487 Search in Google Scholar

Clark, A., & Oswald, A. (1996). Satisfaction and comparison income. Journal of Public Economics 61(3), 359–381. 10.1016/0047-2727(95)01564-7 Search in Google Scholar

Clark, A., Frijters, P., & Shields, M. (2008). Relative income, happiness and utility: An explanation for the easterlin paradox and other puzzles. Journal of Economic Literature 46(1), 95–144. 10.1257/jel.46.1.95 Search in Google Scholar

Clark, A. (2018). Four decades of the economics of happiness: Where next? Review of Income and Wealth 64(2), 245–269. 10.1111/roiw.12369 Search in Google Scholar

Danisman Isik, A. (2018). Subjective poverty: An assessment by Leyden approach. Amme Idaresi Dergisi 51(1), 71–100. Search in Google Scholar

Davis, Y. D., & Gouws, A. (2013). Monitoring perceptions of the causes of poverty in South Africa. Social Indicators Research 110, 1201-1220. 10.1007/s11205-011-9980-9 Search in Google Scholar

Deleeck, H. (1989). The adequacy of the social security system in Belgium, 1976-1985. Journal of Social Policy 18(1), 91–117. 10.1017/S0047279400017220 Search in Google Scholar

Delhausse, B., Luttgens, A., & Perelman, S. (1993). Comparing measures of poverty and relative deprivation – an example for Belgium. Journal of Population Economics 6(1), 83–102. 10.1007/BF00164340 Search in Google Scholar

Džuka, J., Babinčák, P., Kačmárová, M., Mikulášková, G., & Martončik, M. (2017). Subjektívne príčiny a psychologické dôsledky chudoby: prehľadová štúdia [Subjective causes and psychological consequences of poverty: A review study]. Československá psychologie 61(1), 58–67. Search in Google Scholar

EU-SILC (2011). Description of Target Variables: Household Data (H-file). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/1012329/6070906/Household+data+-+material+deprivation.pdf/6f0726a5-4135-48a3-bacd-d2a3b47cbbec Search in Google Scholar

EU-SILC (2013). Description of Target Variables: Cross-sectional and Longitudinal. Retrieved from https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/d7e88330-3502-44fa-96ea-eab5579b4d1e/SILC065%20operation%202013%20VERSION%20MAY%202013.pdf Search in Google Scholar

EU-SILC (2015). Quality of life indicators – material living conditions. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Quality_of_life_indicators_-_material_living_conditions Search in Google Scholar

EU-SILC (2018). Material deprivation. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ statistics- explained/index.php/Glossary:Material_deprivation Search in Google Scholar

Flik, R., & Van Praag, B. (1991). Subjective poverty line definitions. De Economist 139(3), 311–330. 10.1007/BF01423569 Search in Google Scholar

Garcia-Carro, B., & Sanchez-Sellero, M. (2019). Measurement and spatial localisation of subjective poverty in Spain. Revista Espa ñ ola de Investigaciones Sociológicas 165, 83–99. Search in Google Scholar

Goedhart, T., Halberstadt, V., Kapteyn, A., & Van Praag, B. (1977). The poverty line: Concept and measurement. Journal of Human Resources 12(4), 503–520. 10.2307/145372 Search in Google Scholar

Gordon, D. (1972). Theories of poverty and underemployment; orthodox, radical, and dual labor market perspectives Lexington: Lexington Books. Search in Google Scholar

Hutchinson, P., Abrams, D., & Christian, J. (2005). The social psychology of exclusion. In D. Abrams, M. A. Hogg & J. M. Marques (Eds.), The social psychology of inclusion and exclusion New York: Psychology Press. Search in Google Scholar

Kapteyn, A., Kooreman, P., & Willemse, R. (1988). Some methodological issues in the implementation of subjective poverty definitions. The Journal of Human Resources 23(2), 222–242. 10.2307/145777 Search in Google Scholar

Kingdon, G., & Knight, J. (2006). Subjective well-being poverty vs. income poverty and capabilities poverty? The Journal of Development Studies 42(7), 1199–1224. Search in Google Scholar

Klasen, S. (2000). Measuring poverty and deprivation in South Africa. Review of Income and Wealth 46(1), 33–58. 10.1111/j.1475-4991.2000.tb00390.x Search in Google Scholar

Lewis, A., Webley, P., & Furnham, A. (1995 The new economic mind: The social psychology of economic behaviour . New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Search in Google Scholar

Mareš, P., & Rabušic, L. (1997). Subjective poverty and its structure in the Czech Republic. Sociológia 29(3), 279–299. Search in Google Scholar

Narayan, D., & Petesch, P. (2007) Moving out of poverty, Volume 1. Cross-disciplinary perspectives on mobility. Washington DC/New York: The World Bank/Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1596/978-0-8213-6991-3 Search in Google Scholar

Norton, A., Bird, B., Brock, K., Kakande, M., Turk, C. (2001). A rough guide to PPAs: Participatory Poverty Assessment: An introduction to theory and practice London: Overseas Development Institute. Search in Google Scholar

Mysíková, M., Večerník, J., & Želinský, T. (2015). Vliv nízké pracovní intenzity na chudobu v České republice a Slovenské republice [The impact of low work intensity on poverty in the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic]. Ekonomický časopis 63(6), 555–575. Search in Google Scholar

Ravallion, M. (1994). Poverty comparisons Chur: Harwood Academic Press. Search in Google Scholar

Ravallion, M., & Chen, S. (1997). What can new survey data tell us about recent changes in distribution and poverty? World Bank Economic Review 11(2), 357–382. 10.1596/1813-9450-1694 Search in Google Scholar

Ravallion, M. (2010). Poverty lines across the world Policy Research Working Paper 5284. World Bank: Development Research Group. Search in Google Scholar

Ravallion, M. (2012). Poor, or just feeling poor ? On using subjective data in measuring poverty. Policy Research Working Paper 5968. World Bank: Development Research Group. 10.1596/1813-9450-5968 Search in Google Scholar

Riegel, K. (2007). Ekonomická psychologie [Economic psychology]. Prague: Grada Publishing. Search in Google Scholar

Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom New York: Knopf. Search in Google Scholar

Shildrick, T., & Rucell, J. (2015). Sociological perspectives on poverty. A review of sociological theories on the causes of poverty. JRF Report June 2015. Retrieved from https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/sociological-perspectives-poverty Search in Google Scholar

Tosun, J. et al. (2018). Perceived economic self-sufficiency: a country- and generation-comparative approach. European Political Science 1-22. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-018-0186-3 10.1057/s41304-018-0186-3 Search in Google Scholar

Townsend, P. (1979). Poverty in the United Kingdom. London: Allen Lane and Penguin Books. 10.1525/9780520325760 Search in Google Scholar

Van den Bosch, K., Callan, T., Estivill, J., Hausman, P., Jeandidier, B., Muffels, R., Yfantopoulos, J. (1993). A comparison of poverty in seven European countries and regions using subjective and relative measures Journal of Population Economics 6, 235–259. 10.1007/BF00163069 Search in Google Scholar

Van Praag, B., Spit, J. S., & Van de Stadt, H. (1982). A comparison between the Food ratio poverty line and the Leyden poverty line. Review of Economics and Statistics 64(4), 691–694. 10.2307/1923954 Search in Google Scholar

Večerník, J., & Mysíková, M. (2016). Poverty in Czech Republic A critical look at EU indicators. Prague: The Institute of Sociology of the Czech Academy of Sciences. Search in Google Scholar

Vlačuha, R., & Kováčová, Y. (2015). EU SILC 2014. Indikátory chudoby a sociálneho vylúčenia [Indicators of poverty and social exclusion]. Bratislava: Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic. Search in Google Scholar

© 2020 Institute for Research in Social Communication, Slovak Academy of Sciences

• X / Twitter

Supplementary Materials

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

Journal and Issue

Articles in the same issue.

202 Poverty Essay Topics & Examples

Poverty is one of the most pressing global issues affecting millions of individuals. We want to share some intriguing poverty essay topics and research questions for you to choose the titles of your paper correctly. With the help of this collection, you can explore the intricate dimensions of poverty, its causes, consequences, and potential solutions. Have a look at our poverty topics to get a deeper understanding of poverty and its implications.

💸 TOP 10 Poverty Essay Topics

🏆 best poverty essay examples, 👍 catchy poverty research topics, 🧐 thought-provoking poverty topics, 🎓 interesting poverty essay topics, ❓ research questions about poverty.

• Poverty: Causes and Solutions to Problem
• Poverty as a Social Problem
• Homelessness and Poverty in Developed and Developing Countries
• The Eliminating Poverty Strategies
• Poverty Effects on an Individual
• Correlation Between Poverty and Juvenile Delinquency
• Poverty and Theories of Its Causes
• Degrading Consequences of Poverty in “The Pearl” by John Steinbeck Poverty is identity in John Steinbeck’s The Pearl, and the main character Kino, a poor fisherman, manifests a transformation in his identity,
• Poverty Effects on Mental Health This paper examines the link between poverty and mental health, the literature findings on the topic, and proposes a potential solution.
• Global Poverty and Nursing Intervention It is evident that poor health and poverty are closely linked. Community nurses who are conversant with the dynamics of the health of the poor can run successful health promotion initiatives.
• Relationship Between Poverty and Crime The paper makes the case and discusses inequality rather than poverty being the prime reason for people committing crimes.
• Vicious Circle of Poverty In this essay, the author describes the problem of poverty, its causes and ways of optimizing the economy and increasing production efficiency.
• Urbanization and Poverty in “Slumdog Millionaire” Film Boyle’s movie, “Slumdog Millionaire,” is one of many successful attempts to depict the conditions in which people who are below the poverty level live.
• Effects of Poverty on Education in the USA Colleges It is clear that poverty affects not only the living standards and lifestyle of people but also the college education in the United States of America.
• Empowerment and Poverty Reduction The objective of this essay will be to highlight the health issues caused by poverty and the strategies needed to change the situation of poor people through empowerment.
• Poverty from Christian Perspective Christians perceive poverty differently than people without faith, noting the necessity for integrated support to help those in need.
• The Orthodox and Alternative Poverty Explanations Comparison Poverty has over the years become a worldwide subject of concern for economies. This essay will explore two theories- the orthodox and the alternative theories to poverty.
• Poverty from Functionalist and Rational Choice Perspectives Poverty is a persistent social phenomenon, which can be examined from both the functionalist and rational choice perspectives.
• How Does Poverty Affect Crime Rates? On the basis of this research question, the study could be organized and conducted to prove the following hypothesis – when poverty increases, crime rates increase as well.
• The Poverty as an Ethical Issue Looking at poverty as an ethical issue, we have to consider the fact that there are people who control resource distribution, which then leads to wealth or poverty in a community.
• Effects of Divorce and Poverty in Families In the event of a divorce children are tremendously affected and in most cases attention is not given to them the way it should.
• Poverty and Homelessness in Jackson, Mississippi This paper will review the statistics and information about poverty and homelessness in Jackson, MS. The community of Black Americans is suffering from poverty and homelessness.
• Poverty in “Serving in Florida” and “Dumpster Diving” “Serving in Florida” by Barbara Ehrenreich describes the harsh reality of living in poverty while concentrating on the pragmatic dimension of the issue
• Poverty in Young and Middle Adulthood According to functionalism, poverty is a dysfunctional aspect of interrelated components, which is the result of improper structuring.
• Poverty: Behavioral, Structural, Political Factors The research paper will primarily argue that poverty is a problem caused by a combination of behavioral, structural, and political systems.
• Poverty in “On Dumpster Diving” by Lars Eighner Essay “On Dumpster Diving” by Lars Eighner evokes compassion and prompts individuals to think about social problems existing nowadays.
• Bullying in Poverty and Child Development Context The aim of the present paper is to investigate how Bullying, as a factor associated with poverty, affects child development.
• Diana George’s Changing the Face of Poverty Book Diana George’s book, Changing the Face of Poverty, begins with a summary of several Thanksgiving commercials and catalogs.
• The Analysis of Henry George’s “Crime of Poverty” Reviewing Henry George’s Crime of Poverty, which was written in 1885, in its historical context can shed light on socio-political developments within the country.
• “What Is Poverty” by Dalrymple The purpose of this paper is to present Dalrymple point of view and analyze it by applying philosophical concepts.
• Love and Poverty in My Papa’s Waltz by Theodore Roethke The present paper includes a brief analysis of the poem ‘My Papa’s Waltz’ with a focus on imagery and figurative language.
• Racial Discrimination and Poverty Racial discrimination and poverty have resulted in health disparities and low living standards among African Americans in the United States.
• How Poverty Impacts on Life Chances, Experiences and Opportunities for Young People The paper specifically dwells on the social exclusion, class, and labeling theories to place youth poverty in its social context.
• The Concept of Poverty This work is aimed at identifying the key aspects associated with poverty and its impact on the lives of people in different contexts.
• The Problem of Poverty in Art of Different Periods Artists have always been at the forefront of addressing social issues, by depicting them in their works and attempting to draw the attention of the public to sensitive topics.
• Child’s Development and Education: Negative Effects of Poverty Some adverse effects of poverty on a child’s development and education are poor performance academically, stagnant physical development, and behavioral issues.
• Poverty and Its Negative Impact on Society Poverty affects many people globally, experiencing poor living conditions, limited access to education, unemployment, poor infrastructure, malnutrition, and child labor.
• Poverty in Ghana: Reasons and Solution Strategy The analysis provided in the paper revealed some internal and external factors that deter better economic and human development in Ghana.
• Poverty Relation With Immigrants Poverty-related immigration is usually caused by population pressures; as the natural land becomes less productive due to the increased technology and industrial production.
• The Ideal Society: Social Stratification and Poverty The paper argues social classes exist because of the variations in socioeconomic capacities in the world; however, an ideal society can eliminate them.
• Poverty: “$2.00 a Day” Book by Edin and Schaefer In their book “$2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America,” Edin and Schaefer investigate problems that people who live in poverty face every day.
• Poverty and Inequality: Income and Wealth Inequality The Stanford Center of Poverty and Inequality does an in-depth job of finding causes and capturing statistics on poverty and inequality.
• How Access to Clean Water Influences the Problem of Poverty Since people in some developing countries have insufficient water supply even now, they suffer from starvation, lack of hygiene, and water-associated diseases.
• Global Issues of World Poverty: Reasons and Solutions The term ‘world poverty’ refers to poverty around the world and is not only limited to developing and under-developed nations.
• Poverty, Faith, and Justice: ”Liberating God of Life” by Elizabeth Johnson “Liberating God of Life Context: Wretched Poverty” by Johnson constructs that the main goal of human beings is to combat structural violence toward the poor.
• Global Poverty and Human Development Poverty rates across the globe continue to be a major issue that could impair the progress of humanity as a whole.
• Poverty and Homelessness in Canada Poverty and homelessness figure prominently in government policies and the aims of many social service organizations even in a country like Canada.
• Global Poverty, Inequality, and Mass Migration Such global issues as poverty and inequality and mass migration are significant today since many people are involved in them.
• How Poverty Affects Early Education? A number of people live in poor conditions. According to the researchers of the Department of Education in the United States, poverty influences academic performance in an adverse way.
• Poverty in 1930s Europe and in the 21st Century US The true face of poverty may be found in rural portions of the United States’ South and Southwest regions, where living standards have plummeted, and industries have yet to begin.
• Wealth, Poverty, and Systems of Economic Class By examining wealth, poverty, and economic classes from the perspective of social justice, the socioeconomic inequalities persistent in society will become clear.
• The U.S. Education: Effect of Poverty Poverty effects on education would stretch to other aspects of life and this justifies that, poverty in United States not only affects social lifestyles but also college education.
• Donald Trump’s Policies of Poverty and Human Rights One of the events related to an acute social issue of poverty in the United States involves the U.N. report on extreme U.S. poverty and human rights in the context of Donald Trump’s policies.
• Household Energy Use and Poverty In many developing countries, as well as among disadvantaged populations of the industrial states, the lack or absence of energy for household use is an everyday reality.
• Utilitarianism: Poverty Reduction Through Charity This paper shows that poverty levels can be reduced if wealthy individuals donate a part of their earnings, using the main principles of the utilitarian theory.
• Poverty in the “LaLee’s Kin” Documentary In this paper, the author will analyse poverty as a social problem in the Mississippi Delta. The issue will be analysed from the perspective of the documentary “LaLee’s Kin”.
• Immigrant Children and Poverty Immigrant child poverty poses considerable social predicaments, because it is related to several long lasting school and development linked difficulties.
• Evaluating the “Expertness” of the Southern Law Poverty Center The Southern Law Poverty Center has garnered controversy for its list of so-called “hate groups” and how it spends its half-billion-dollar budget.
• Chronic Poverty and Disability in the UK The country exhibits absolute poverty and many other social issues associated with under-developed states. The issue is resolvable through policy changes.
• Rutger Bregman’s Statement of Poverty The paper states that Bregman’s approach to poverty and the proposal of guaranteed regular income is more suitable for developing countries.
• Lessons Learned From the Poverty Simulation The main lesson learned from the poverty simulation is that poverty is far more serious than depicted in the media, which carelessly documents the numbers of poor people.
• Wealth and Poverty Sources in America This paper explains the causes and consequences of poverty in the United States, programs and systems to combat it, and government benefits to support families in distress.
• The Impact of Poverty on Children and Minority Groups The problem of poverty, not only among children but also among adults, has plagued this planet for a long time.
• Habitat for the Homeless: Poverty The paper states that Habitat for the Homeless comes to fulfill American values by ensuring that Americans can afford houses at a low price.
• Poverty: Causes and Reduction Measures Poverty is a global disaster and that a large percentage of the population has insufficient income or material possessions to satisfy their basic needs.
• School System: Poverty and Education This short assessment presents at least three examples of differences between the schools that lead to disadvantages in the education system and finally provides a suggestion to help bridge the gap.
• The City of Atlanta, Georgia: Poverty and Homelessness This project goal is to address several issues in the community of the City of Atlanta. Georgia. The primary concern is the high rate of poverty and homelessness in the city.
• Human Trafficking and Poverty Discussion This paper synthesize information on human trafficking and poverty by providing an annotated bibliography of relevant sources.
• Should People Be Ashamed of Poverty? People on welfare should not feel ashamed because the definition of poverty does not necessarily place them in the category of the poor.
• Poverty, Politics, and Profit as US Policy Issue Poverty remains one of the most intractable problems to deal with, both in the international community and in the United States.
• Christ’s Relationships with Wealth and Poverty This paper attempts to examine Christ’s relationships with wealth, money and poverty and provide an analysis of these relationships.
• Global Poverty and Education Economic theories like liberalization, deregulation, and privatization were developed to address global poverty.
• Poverty and Poor Health: Access to Healthcare Services Health disparities affecting ethnical and racial groups, as well as people with low income, operate through the social environments, access to healthcare services.
• Poverty and Mental Health Correlation The analysis of the articles provides a comprehensive understanding of the poverty and mental health correlation scale and its current state.
• Attitudes to Poverty: Singer’s Arguments Singer argues against the observation by the rich than helping one poor person can repeat over and over again until the rich eventually becomes poor.
• Poverty: The Negative Effects on Children Poor children often do not have access to quality healthcare, so they are sicker and more likely to miss school. Poor children are less likely to have weather-appropriate clothes.
• The Issue of the Poverty in the USA The most sustainable technique for poverty elimination in the United States is ensuring equitable resource distribution, education, and healthcare access.
• Poverty and How This Problem Can Be Solved Poverty is one of the global social problems of our time, existing even in the countries of the first world despite the generally high standard of living of people.
• Poverty: An Interplay of Social and Economic Psychology The paper demonstrates an interplay of social and economic psychology to scrutinize the poverty that has given rise to a paycheck-to-paycheck nation.
• Refugees: Poverty, Hunger, Climate Change, and Violence Individuals struggling with poverty, hunger, climate change, and gender-based violence and persecution may consider fleeing to the United States.
• The Extent of Poverty in the United States The paper states that the issue of poverty in the USA is induced by a butterfly effect, starting with widespread discrimination and lack of support.
• The Issue of Poverty in Savannah, Georgia The paper addresses a serious issue that still affects Savannah, Georgia, and it is poverty. This problem influences both individuals and society.
• Poverty in Puerto Rico and Eradication Measures Studying Puerto Rican poverty as a social problem is essential because it helps identify the causes, effects, and eradication measures in Puerto Rico and other nations.
• Human Trafficking and Poverty Issues in Modern Society The problem of human trafficking affects people all over the world, which defines the need for a comprehensive approach to this issue from the criminology perspective.
• Poverty and Homelessness Among African Americans Even though the U.S. is wealthy and prosperous by global measures, poverty has persisted in the area, with Blacks accounting for a larger share.
• Poverty: Resilience and Intersectionality Theories This paper assesses the impact of poverty on adult life, looking at risk and protective factors and the impact of power and oppression on the experience of poverty.
• Economic Inequality and Its Relationship to Poverty This research paper will discuss the problem of economic inequality and show how this concept relates to poverty.
• Discussion of Poverty and Social Trends The advances and consequent demands on society grounded on social class and trends profoundly influence poverty levels.
• Life of Humanity: Inequality, Poverty, and Tolerance The paper concerns the times in which humanity, and especially the American people, live, not forgetting about inequality, poverty, and tolerance.
• Poverty, Its Social Context, and Solutions Understanding past and present poverty statistics is essential for developing effective policies to reduce the rate of poverty at the national level.
• Poverty in the US: “Down and Out in Paris and London” by Orwell The essay compares the era of George Orwell to the United States today based on the book “Down and Out in Paris and London” in terms of poverty.
• Is It Possible to Reduce Poverty in the United States? Reducing poverty in the United States is possible if such areas as education, employment, and health care are properly examined and improved for the public’s good.
• Poverty Among Seniors Age 65 and Above The social problem is the high poverty rate among older people aged 65 and above. Currently, there are millions of elderly who are living below the poverty line.
• Social Issue of Poverty in America The paper states that poverty is not an individual’s fault but rather a direct result of social, economic, and political circumstances.
• Poverty, Housing, and Community Benefits The community will benefit from affordable housing and business places, creating job opportunities for the residents and mentoring and apprenticeship.
• The Uniqueness of the Extent of the Poverty Rate in America The United States ranked near the top regarding poverty and inequality, and compared to other developed countries, income and wealth disparity in the United States is high.
• Globalization and Poverty: Trade Openness and Poverty Reduction in Nigeria Globalization can be defined as the process of interdependence on the global culture, economy, and population. It is brought about by cross-border trade.
• Inequality and Poverty in the United States One of the most common myths is that the United States (US) is a meritocracy, where anyone can succeed if they maintain industriousness.
• Christian Perspective on Poverty Several Christian interpretations have different ideas about poverty and wealth. This paper aims to discuss the Christian perspective on poverty.
• Poverty and Problematic Housing in California The question is what are the most vulnerable aspects of the administrative system that lead to an aggravation of the situation of homelessness.
• Race, Poverty, and Incarceration in the United States The American justice system, in its current form, promotes disproportionally high incarceration rates among blacks and, to a lesser degree, Latinos from poor urban neighborhoods.
• Global Poverty and Factors of Influence This paper introduces a complex perspective on the issue of global poverty, namely, incorporating economic, social, cultural, and environmental factors into the analysis.
• Poverty Causes and Solutions in Latin America This paper aims to understand the importance of the interference of Europe in Latin American affairs and its referring to the general principles of poverty.
• Gary Haugen’s Speech on Violence and Poverty In his speech, Gary Haugen discusses the causes of poverty and concludes that violence is a hidden problem that should be addressed and eliminated.
• The Child Poverty Problem in Alabama Alabama has a very high rate of child poverty, where a quarter or 24% of all children can be categorized as poor.
• Poverty Among Blacks in America Poverty is a major social problem in the US and disproportionately affects the Black ethnicity leading to adverse effects on their quality of life.
• Hard Questions About Living in Poverty or Slavery
• Relationship Between Poverty and Health People in 2020
• Solving the Problem of Poverty in Mendocino County
• “Promises and Poverty”: Starbucks Conceals Poverty and Deterioration of the Environment
• Poverty and Social Causation Hypothesis
• Global Poverty and Economic Globalization Relations
• Poverty Prevalence and Causes in the United States
• Policy Development to Overcome Child Poverty in the U.S.
• Global Poverty: Tendencies, Causes and Impacts
• The Problem of Poverty Among Children
• African American Families in Poverty
• Effects of Poverty on Health Care in the US and Afghanistan
• Poverty Among Children from Immigrant Workers
• “8 Million Have Slipped Into Poverty Since May as Federal Aid Has Dried Up” by Jason DeParle
• Teenage Pregnancy After Exposure to Poverty: Causation and Communication
• Poverty and Covid-19 in Developing Countries
• Poverty in America: Socio-Economic Inequality
• Poverty and Its Effects Upon Special Populations
• Carl Hart’s Talk on Racism, Poverty, and Drugs
• Global Poverty and Education Correlation
• American Dream and Poverty in the United States
• Changing the Face of Poverty
• The Link Between Poverty and Criminal Behavior
• The Cost of Saving: The Problem of Poverty
• Sociological Issues About Social Class and Poverty, Race and Ethnicity, Gender
• Speech on Mother Teresa: Poverty and Interiority in Mother Teresa
• Federal Poverty, Welfare, and Unemployment Policies
• Aid Agency Discussing Different Solutions to Poverty in Urban Areas
• Poverty Elimination in Perspective
• Marriage and Divorce: Poverty Among Divorced Women
• Is Debt Cancellation the Answer to World Poverty?
• Reduction of Poverty in the Rural Areas Through ICT
• Trade Effect on Environmentalism and Poverty

🌶️ Hot Poverty Ideas to Write about

• Gay and Poverty Marriage
• “Combating Poverty in Latin America” by Robyn Eversole
• Are MNCs Responsible for Poverty and Violence in Developing Nations?
• “Globalization, Poverty and Inequality” by Kaplinsky
• Poverty in America: Issue Analysis
• Economic Development in LDCs and Eradication Absolute Poverty
• Economic Development in LDCs and Sufficient Conditions to Eradicate Absolute Poverty
• Social Policy and Welfare – Poverty and Deprivation
• Poverty in New York City and Media Representation
• India’s Policies to Tackle Poverty and Inequality
• Poverty and Inequality Reducing Policies in China
• Poverty and Homelessness: Dimensions and Constructions
• Henry George’s “Progress and Poverty” Book
• World Poverty as a Global Social Problem
• Poverty from a Sociological Standpoint
• Poverty Among the USA Citizens and Reduction Efforts
• Standards of the Ethical Code: Children and Poverty
• Can Marriage End Poverty?
• Grameen Banking System Alleviating Poverty
• Brazil’ Poverty and Inequality
• Child Poverty Assessment in Canada
• National Conversation about Poverty
• Poverty and Welfare Policies in the United States
• Poverty in “The Bottom Billion” by Paul Collier
• Modern Slavery, Human Trafficking and Poverty
• Poverty and Violence During the Mexican Revolution
• Affordable Housing Programs in “Poverty in America”
• The Government of Bangladesh: Corruption and Poverty
• Poverty in “I Beat the Odds” by Oher and Yaegar
• Inequality in Australia: Poverty Rates and Globalism
• The Issue of World Poverty and Ways to Alleviate the Poverty in the World
• Problem of World Poverty
• Drug’s, Poverty’s and Beauty’s Effects on Health
• Can Authorization Reduce Poverty Among Undocumented Immigrants?
• Can Higher Employment Levels Bring Lower Poverty in the EU?
• Are Private Transfers Poverty and Inequality Reducing?
• Can Group-Based Credit Uphold Smallholder Farmers Productivity and Reduce Poverty in Africa?
• Can Anti-Poverty Programs Improve Family Functioning and Enhance Children’s Well-Being?
• Can Laziness Explain Poverty in America?
• Are Social Exclusion and Poverty Measures Interrelated?
• Can Increasing Smallholder Farm Size Broadly Reduce Rural Poverty in Zambia?
• Can Crop Purchase Programs Reduce Poverty and Improve Welfare in Rural Communities?
• Does Aid Availability Affect Effectiveness in Reducing Poverty?
• Can Employer Credit Checks Create Poverty Traps?
• Are the Poverty Effects of Trade Policies Invisible?
• Can Foreign Aid Reduce Poverty?
• Are Education Systems Modern as Well as Practical Enough to Eliminate Unemployment, and Thus Poverty?
• Can High-Inequality Developing Countries Escape Absolute Poverty?
• Are Inequality and Trade Liberalization Influences on Growth and Poverty?
• Can Globalisation Realistically Solve World Poverty?
• Are Urban Poverty and Undernutrition Growing?
• Can Big Push Interventions Take Small-Scale Farmers Out of Poverty?
• Can Civilian Disability Pensions Overcome the Poverty Issue?
• Are Poverty Rates Underestimated in China?
• Does Agriculture Help Poverty and Inequality Reduction?
• Can Agricultural Households Farm Their Way Out of Poverty?
• Are Income Poverty and Perceptions of Financial Difficulties Dynamically Interrelated?
• Are Bangladesh’s Recent Gains in Poverty Reduction Different From the Past?
• Can Cash Transfers Help Households Escape an Intergenerational Poverty Trap?
• Are Remittances Helping Lower Poverty and Inequality Levels in Latin America?
• Can Foreign Aid Reduce Income Inequality and Poverty?
• Can Child-Care Subsidies Reduce Poverty?
• Can Income Inequality Reduction Be Used as an Instrument for Poverty Reduction?

Cite this post

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2021, September 9). 202 Poverty Essay Topics & Examples. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/poverty-essay-topics/

"202 Poverty Essay Topics & Examples." StudyCorgi , 9 Sept. 2021, studycorgi.com/ideas/poverty-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . (2021) '202 Poverty Essay Topics & Examples'. 9 September.

1. StudyCorgi . "202 Poverty Essay Topics & Examples." September 9, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/poverty-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "202 Poverty Essay Topics & Examples." September 9, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/poverty-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . 2021. "202 Poverty Essay Topics & Examples." September 9, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/poverty-essay-topics/.

These essay examples and topics on Poverty were carefully selected by the StudyCorgi editorial team. They meet our highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, and fact accuracy. Please ensure you properly reference the materials if you’re using them to write your assignment.

This essay topic collection was updated on January 8, 2024 .

Poverty Environment Network

• Go to CIFOR-ICRAF.org
• CIFOR-ICRAF’s website cifor-icraf.org features
• About CIFOR
• Research staff
• Research associates
• Procurement
• Annual reports
• Financial Statements
• Work with us

About CIFOR-ICRAF

• ABOUT CIFOR-ICRAF
• Common Board of Trustees
• Our Strategy
• Merger FAQs

Column-3 Ourwork

• ANONYMOUS REPORTING HOTLINE
• RESEARCH TEAMS
• Climate change, energy and low-carbon development
• Equal opportunities, gender, justice and tenure
• Sustainable landscapes and livelihoods
• Value chains, finance and investment
• PROJECT WEBSITES
• GLOBAL LANDSCAPES FORUM
• FORESTS, TREES AND AGROFORESTRY (FTA)
• OTHER CGIAR RESEARCH PROGRAMS
• Latin America and the Caribbean
• Publications
• Forests News
• Presentations
• Projects database
• Upcoming events
• Past events

Featured events

• Landscape News
• Social media
• Corporate news
• Press releases
• Media coverage
• News update
• Media inquiries

Latest news

• Global Landscapes Forum
• GCS: Global Comparative Study on REDD+
• The Sustainable Wetlands Adaptation and Mitigation Program (SWAMP)
• Community-Based Fire Prevention and Peatland Restoration
• Governing Multifunctional Landscapes
• Yangambi Engagement Landscape
• Water towers
• View all project
• CIFOR – ICRAF merger FAQ
• Board of Trustees
• Management group
• Contact our experts
• About our research
• West and Central Africa

• Justification

Key Research Questions

The overall research question for PEN is: What is the current role of forests in poverty alleviation, and how can that role be enhanced through better policy formulation and implementation? This question needs to be made more specific to become researchable. PEN will do this by looking at several dimensions of the forest-poverty link:

• the role in rural livelihoods (regular consumption, insurance, or poverty reduction):
• the role for different groups (degrees of poverty, but also other indicators, e.g. age, household headship, migrants);
• the role in different forest environments (forest abundance, condition, type, management etc.);
• the role in different institutional contexts (e.g., tenure regime and local management);
• the role in different market contexts (market access integration, competitiveness in forest products markets, etc.).

By carefully investigating how these dimensions determine the forest-poverty relationship, PEN can answer several more specific research questions, for example:

• What is the relationship between forest use/dependency and household income/assets in different forest environments (similarities and differences)?
• What are the common characteristics of high forest income across the different environments? Are the poor universally more forests dependent than the better-off households?
• Has local forest ownership and management increased the local forest benefits (and for which groups)?
• How does forest dependency shift (e.g., from products to services) with economic development and market integration?
• Is forest dependency just a temporary phenomenon that disappears when other opportunities arise?
• How do forest products markets shape the people-forest relationship (investments, management, degradation)?
• Is there something special (market and policy failures) about forests that prevent utilizing the full potential in poverty alleviation, and if so what is that?

Funding Partners

Stay connected

Diam habitant integer ultricies nonummy ducimus voluptatum parturient nec molestiae distinctio nascetur montes vitae! Torquent, cubilia.

9 Questions You Have Asked About Poverty

Dec 13, 2016

Poverty across the USA is a systematic problem that touches all walks of life, including people in your own community. Consider your thoughts each time you see a homeless person. Have you ever wondered if they are on drugs or why don’t they just get a job?

Poverty is most commonly defined as lacking financial resources. The Federal Poverty Guidelines  is how most public assistance is determined. For a family of four, earning less than $24,000 per year, they are considered 100% below the poverty line. The problem with this definition is that is doesn’t account for things such as lack of reliable transportation, mental and physical health, social capital, and emotional stress.

Here are nine important questions you may have asked about poverty and some insights to get you thinking.

Question #1: Why Does Poverty Still Exist? Unfortunately, the cycle of poverty is nearly impossible to climb out of, especially for those born into it. There are several factors that contribute to why poverty still exists. The economy, cost of living, education, wages, health insurance, housing, transportation, and mental health all play a role. One of the biggest barriers for self sufficiency is what’s known as The Cliff Effect. This is where they lose their assistance faster than they can make up the difference. Check out this great video.

Question #2: Isn’t Poverty a Choice? Living in poverty is often not a choice for many people. The majority of those in poverty are working very hard to get out, especially here in Utah County. Some are born into it (intergenerational poverty) and end up sacrifice schooling and other opportunities to just help their family survive. Others fall into it after an unexpected medical emergency or other unforeseen circumstance (situational poverty). They work hard at often stressful, low paying jobs that barely pay the rent. People with disabilities, single parents, international students, veterans and even maybe your next door neighbor all have their own insurmountable barriers whether visible or not. That’s why everything we do at Community Action is centered around providing the education, resources and support to achieve self-reliance.

Question #3: Is Poverty an Issue In Utah County? Yes, the fact is 14% of Utah County lives in Poverty. This means that there are over 70,000 of our own neighbors and friends struggling to make ends meet, including 22,000 children. We see the faces of young families, single moms, and seniors enter our doors every day. This not only impacts them, but our community as a whole. It impacts our schools, jobs, housing market, healthcare and future generations.

Question #4: Aren’t Most Homeless People Drug Addicts? Granted, the high toll drugs take on people’s lives can often lead to chronic homelessness, not everyone who is homeless has problems with drug abuse. Homelessness in Utah County looks very different that you might imagine. Most of Utah residents struggling with homelessness are what are referred to a vicariously housed. This means they are not necessarily living on the street but 14 days away from being evicted or are doubled up in a home somewhere. They might be facing eviction, living with a friend for a limited amount of time, paying for a motel until they can find affordable housing. While chronic homelessness is an issue in Utah County, precariously housed is the bigger issue. We recommend checking out this study for further understanding.

Question #5: Doesn’t The LDS Church Take Care of Everything? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does their part to help people in need and they do a really good job. Despite their incredible efforts, there are people who have needs not met by the LDS Church Welfare system. They recognize this and partner with many organization that have similar missions. The LDS Church also refers people to local organization like Community Action Services and Food Bank. It’s a personal decision when it comes to how and when you give. Do your research about the causes you care about and see if you have something to offer.

Question #6: Aren’t People On Welfare Just Lazy? No, in fact they are often some of the hardest working. They are master problem solvers, creative, and can survive in circumstance that many of us could barely function. They are often forced to make difficult decisions such as having heat in the winter or paying rent. It might surprise you to know that an estimated 73 percent of welfare recipients are actually working families that are struggling to make ends.

Question #7: Why Aren’t My Tax Dollars Doing More? The fact of the matter is that it’s complicated. The federal tax that people pay is supposed to fund public services. According to the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities, it’s split between public programs like Social Security, Medicare, defense of our country, international assistance, and other safety net programs that provide assistance to families. It may seem like an endless amount of money, but it’s spread thin between many places. A way that you can take change of the situation is to donate directly to organizations that you feel make a difference.

Question #8: What Does Generational Poverty Mean? Generational poverty is defined as a family living in poverty for two or more generations. The state report on inter-generational poverty shows that nearly 290,000 kids are at risk of a life on welfare if nothing is done. Lieutenant Governor Spencer Cox weighs in on how important this issue is in this article. The sad fact is that for many families getting out of poverty is a full time job. Hopefully with more assistance programs aimed at improving the education of our youth, with more opportunities to go to college, eventually this type of poverty will be eliminated. That’s the goal to end generational poverty. Utah specifically has a five and ten year plan to get rid of inter-generational poverty which you can read in their 20 page plan for a stronger future.

Question #9: How Can I Help? This is probably the absolute best question you can ask! The best thing you can do is do your research and act. Educate yourself on the needs in your own community and find an organization that matches your passion. Go to city council meetings, be informed about the regulations in question, talk to your neighbors, schools, and find out the issues on the minds of those with low-income. At Community Action Services and Food Bank we are always looking for passionate people willing to give through time, in-kind donations or monetary donations. You can visit the site to find out how you can do more to help those in great need.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Americans take a dim view of the nation’s future, look more positively at the past

Americans are in a negative mood about the current state of the country, with large majorities expressing dissatisfaction with the economy and overall national conditions. And when they look toward the not-too-distant future, they see a country that in many respects will be worse than it is today, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.

Pew Research Center conducted this study to learn about Americans’ views of the country’s past and future. For this analysis, we surveyed 5,079 U.S. adults from March 27 to April 2, 2023. Everyone who took part in this survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used for this analysis, along with responses, and its methodology .

Sizable majorities of U.S. adults say that in 2050 – just over 25 years away – the U.S. economy will be weaker, the United States will be less important in the world, political divisions will be wider and there will be a larger gap between the rich and the poor. Far fewer adults predict positive developments in each of these areas.

And when Americans reflect on the country’s past , the present looks worse by comparison. Around six-in-ten (58%) say that life for people like them is worse today than it was 50 years ago, according to the survey, which was conducted from March 27 to April 2.

Despite these negative attitudes, a majority of Americans say they generally have at least some confidence in the future of the U.S. But far fewer have quite a lot of confidence, and the share of Americans who express confidence in the country’s future has declined over the past year.

Views of specific problems have also become more negative over the past five years. For each of the four items included in the new survey, Americans today are about 10 percentage points more likely to offer a negative prediction than they were when asked to think about the year 2050 in a separate survey conducted by the Center in 2018. For example, 77% of Americans now expect the nation to be more politically divided in 2050 – up from 65% who made that prediction five years ago.

While majorities in both parties make negative predictions for the country’s future across all four items in the survey, Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are somewhat more likely than Democrats and Democratic leaners to have pessimistic views. In 2018, midway through Donald Trump’s term as president, Democrats’ predictions were more negative than Republicans’ on three of the four areas.

White adults are particularly likely to foresee a diminished U.S. in 2050. For example, 69% of White adults anticipate a weaker U.S. economy in 2050, compared with smaller shares of Hispanic (60%), Black (58%) and Asian (55%) adults. There are only modest age differences on each of the four items.

Americans’ negative views of the nation’s future are influenced by their bleak assessments of current conditions . Only 19% of Americans say they are satisfied with the way things are going in the country, while 80% are dissatisfied. Ratings of the economy remain largely negative, and an increasing share of the public expects economic conditions to worsen over the next year.

Compared with a year ago, less confidence in the future of the U.S.

When it comes to general views of the country’s future, six-in-ten U.S. adults currently say they have at least some confidence in the future of the United States, including 12% who have quite a lot of confidence. A third express very little confidence in the country’s future, while just 6% say they have no confidence at all.

Confidence in the future of the country has declined over the past year. In May 2022, 68% said they had at least some confidence in the country’s future, 8 points higher than the share who say this today. The share expressing at least some confidence in the future of the U.S. changed only modestly between August 2020 and May 2022.

As has been the case throughout Joe Biden’s presidency, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to express confidence in the country’s future. About two-thirds of Democrats (66%) have at least some confidence, compared with 56% of Republicans. In 2020, when Trump was president, larger shares of Republicans than Democrats expressed some or quite a lot of confidence in the country’s future.

Both Democrats and Republicans are less likely to express at least some confidence in the country’s future than they were a year ago. The share of Democrats saying this has dropped 8 percentage points, while the share of Republicans has dropped 6 points over this period. Overall, Democrats’ confidence in the future of the country has dropped 18 points since the early months of the Biden administration (84% of Democrats said they had at least some confidence in April 2021).

Older adults are more likely than younger adults to express a great deal of or some confidence in the future of the country. Two-thirds of those ages 50 and older have confidence in the future of the U.S., compared with a smaller majority of those 35 to 49 (56%) and 53% of those 18 to 34.

Differences between older and younger Democrats account for most of this age gap. A sizable majority of Democrats 50 and older (80%) have at least some confidence in the country’s future. That compares with 62% of Democrats ages 35 to 49 and 53% of those 18 to 34.

Among Republicans, by contrast, there are only modest differences on this question across age groups.

In both parties, adults with more formal education and those living in higher-income households are more likely to express a great deal of confidence or some confidence in the country’s future than those with less education and those in lower-income households.

College graduates are more likely than those without a college degree to say they have at least some confidence in the country’s future (69% vs. 56%). And three-quarters of adults living in upper-income households say this, compared with 60% of those in middle-income households and 53% of adults in lower-income households.

Americans’ views of life today versus 50 years ago

In contrast with their negative predictions for the country’s future, large shares of adults view the past in a more positive light than the present day. Around six-in-ten (58%) say that life in America is worse today than it was 50 years ago for people like them. Only about a quarter (23%) say life today is better, while 19% say it is about the same.

The share of Americans who say life today is worse than in the past is up 15 percentage points since the summer of 2021. The share who say life is better has decreased by a similar margin.

Republicans and Democrats alike are now more likely than in 2021 to say that life is worse for people like them, though this view continues to be more prevalent among Republicans than Democrats. Roughly seven-in-ten Republicans (72%) say that life is worse today, up from 59% who said this in 2021. Among Democrats, 43% now say this, up from 30% two years ago.

White adults are far more likely to say life today is worse for people like them than to say it is better (63% vs. 20%), as are Hispanic adults (53% vs. 26%). Attitudes are more divided among Asian adults (48% worse, 38% better) and Black adults (41% worse, 33% better).

While both older adults and younger adults are much more likely to say that life today is worse for people like them than to say life is better, there is a sizable age gap on this question. Adults 50 and older are 46 points more likely to say that life is worse today for people like them than they are to say that life is better (65% vs. 19%). Adults ages 18 to 49, by comparison, are 24 points more likely to say life today is worse (51% vs. 27%).

Note: Here are the questions used for this analysis, along with responses, and its methodology .

• Economy & Work
• International Affairs
• National Conditions
• Partisanship & Issues
• Political Issues

A look at small businesses in the U.S.

7 facts about americans and taxes, key facts about asian americans living in poverty, methodology: 2023 focus groups of asian americans, 1 in 10: redefining the asian american dream (short film), most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy