|

Search

National School of Government

Feedback

• Request email bulletins
• Website feedback

Century sees changing causes of deprivation, but the fight against poverty goes on

A report (One hundred years of poverty and policy ) published on 14 December 2004 to mark the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's (JRF) centenary, concludes that the low incomes of a substantial minority in Britain still exclude them from the fruits of growing prosperity enjoyed by the majority and that social deprivation lays down a continuing political challenge that is likely to intensify as the 21st century progresses.

The report also looks back to the turn of the last century. It finds that today's 'poverty line' of 60 per cent of median household income is much higher in simple purchasing power terms than the measure devised a century ago by Seebohm Rowntree, which was based on the minimal costs of food and housing needed to maintain 'physical efficiency'. But as a measure of poverty relative to what most people are currently earning or can afford, the two measures are surprisingly similar. Comparisons between the 1899 report and figures for 2001/2 taken from the Family Resources Survey show that:

• Just as a century ago, the biggest single group living in poverty are households with a working adult who earns low or irregular wages. However, the proportion of poor households placed in this category has fallen from 55 to 31 per cent.
• Having a main wage earner who is out of work accounts for a higher proportion of poor households (9 per cent) than a hundred years ago (2 per cent).
• Illness or old age of the main earner has become more important, accounting for 26 per cent of today's poor households, compared with 5 per cent a century ago.
• Very large families (five or more children) have declined as a contributor to poverty from 22 per cent to 2 per cent of poor families.
• There is now a substantial group of poor households (27 per cent) whose circumstances are not explained by any of the 'causes' identified by Seebohm Rowntree. These include lone parent families, students and others.
• The proportion of men under 75 who are working has fallen from 93 per cent in 1901 to 67 per cent in 2001. Over the same period, the proportion of women who are in paid work has risen from 31 per cent to 56 per cent.
• In 1899, poorer households spent over half their income on food. In 2001/2 food bills represented only a sixth of total household expenditure.
• The poor families interviewed by Seebohm Rowntree were tenants. Today, renting is confined to one quarter of all households and many poor households are owner-occupiers.

Recording a century of change, the report describes how unemployment in the 1920s and 1930s became the leading cause of poverty. However, in the 1950s and 1960s the largest group living in poverty were older people.

Pensioner poverty declined in the 1970s, but in the 1980s levels of unemployment and lone parenthood increased at a time of rapidly widening income inequalilty. In 2000, a comparison among 15 European Union and other industrialised countries showed that only the United States and Ireland had worse relative poverty rates than Britain, and only the US had a worse relative rate of child poverty.

Drawing out policy lessons from the past for the future, the authors note that periods of progress in reducing poverty have occurred when policies have simultaneously tackled the causes and consequences of deprivation. The present Government's emphasis on policies that seek to deal with many different aspects of childhood poverty and disadvantage can be viewed as a sign of strength.

On an optimist's view of the future, current anti-poverty policies could create a virtuous circle where falling demands for welfare benefits free up resources to extend the scope for treating those who cannot work, more generously.

On a pessimistic scenario, any success in tackling underlying inequalilties could still be overwhelmed by widening wealth inequality and low rates of pay for unskilled workers in an increasingly cut-throat, global market. An ageing population could also place heavy demands on social spending, leading to tax increases and reduced political enthusiasm for spending on anti-poverty policies.

The report can be viewed on the JRF website