Poverty in the postwar era
In the early Fifties, it was believed by numerous people that poverty had been all but abolished from Britain, with only a few isolated pockets of deprivation still remaining.[1] Much of this assumption was derived from a study of poverty in York carried out in 1951 by Joseph Rowntree and his colleague G. R. Lavers, which showed that in 1950 only 1.5% of the survey population lived in poverty, compared with 18% in 1936 when a previous study had been conducted in that town by Rowntree. Rowntree and Laver cited full employment policies, rises in real wages and the expansion of social welfare programmes as the key factors behind this positive development. They could also show that, while 60% of poverty in 1936 was caused by low wages or unemployment, the corresponding figure in 1950 was only 1.% A “Times” leader spoke positively of this ‘remarkable improvement – no less than the virtual abolition of the sheerest want.’[2]
Over the course of the Fifties and Sixties, however, a “rediscovery” of poverty took place, with various surveys showing that a substantial proportion of Britons were impoverished, with between 4% and 12% of the population estimated to be living below the Supplementary Benefits’ scales. In 1969, Professor A. Atkinson stated that
“it seems fair to conclude that the proportion of the population with incomes below the National Assistance/Supplementary Benefits scale lies towards the upper end of the 4-9 per cent.”
According to this definition, between 2-5 million Britons were trapped in poverty. In addition, some 2.6 million people were in receipt of Supplementary Benefits and therefore living on the poverty line. This meant that at least 10% of the population were in poverty at his time.
In their 1965 study on poverty, “The Poor and the Poorest,” Professors Peter Townsend and Brian Abel-Smith decided on measuring poverty on the basis of the Supplementary Benefit scales, plus 40%. Using this poverty line, Townsend and Abel-Smith estimated that some 14% (around 7.5 million) of Britons lived in poverty, i.e. living on incomes that were below 140% of the Supplementary Benefit scales.[3] Townsend and Abel-Smith also estimated that since the mid-Fifties the percentage of the population living in poverty had risen from 8% to 14%.[4]
In his seminal work “Poverty in the UK” (published in 1979), Townsend suggested that 15 million people lived in or on the margins of poverty. He also argued that to get a proper measure of relative deprivation, there was a need to take into account other factors apart from income measures such as peoples’ environment, employment, and housing standards.[5]
In another study on poverty, Wilfred Beckerman estimated that 9.9% of the British population lived below a standardised poverty line in 1973, compared with 6.1% of the population of Belgium (he also found that social security measures in Belgium had been more effective at reducing poverty than those in Britain).[6] Low pay was also a major cause of poverty, with a report by the TUC in 1968 finding that about 5 million females and about 2.5 million males earned less than £15 a week.[7] Slum housing also remained a problem, with 12% of British households living in houses or flats considered to be unfit for human habitation in 1972.[8] Nevertheless, the number of people estimated to be living in poor housing conditions was lower at the start of the Seventies than at the start of the Sixties. In 1961, 4,700,000 households lived in unfit or substandard homes, compared with 2,846,000 in 1971.[9]
During the late Sixties and Seventies, progress was made in reducing the level of post-war poverty and inequality.[10] Based on various measurements, however, the number of Britons living in poverty rose significantly from 1979 to 1985. The number of Britons living in poverty (when defined as living below the Supplementary Benefit level) rose from 2,090,000 to 2,420,000 during that period, while the number of people living in poverty when defined as living on or below the Supplementary Benefit level rose from 6,070,000 to 9,380,000. Using a poverty measurement of living at 140% of the Supplementary Benefit level or below, the rise was alarmingly higher, from 11,570,000 to 15,420,000.[11]
Figures from the European Commission estimated that from 1975 to 1985 the number of people living in poverty had doubled in Britain, from just over 3 million to 6.5 million. In 1975, the United Kingdom had fewer people living in poverty than Germany, Italy, Belgium, and Luxembourg. By 1989, Britain had a higher poverty than each of these four countries. In 1989, 12% of the UK population was estimated to be living in poverty, compared with 11.7% in Italy, 8.5% in Germany, 7.9% in Luxembourg, 7.4% in the Netherlands, and 7.2% in Belgium.[12]
From 1979 to 1987, the number of Britons living in poverty (defined as living on less than half the national average income) doubled, from roughly 10% to 20% of the whole population. In 1989, almost 6 million full-time workers, representing 37% of the total full-time workforce, earned less than the “decency threshold” defined by the Council of Europe as 68% of average full-time earnings.[13] In 1994, 76.7% of all part-time workers earned less than this threshold.[14] A 2000 report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimated that 4 million people lacked access to a healthy diet,[15] while a review of EU food and health policies estimated that food poverty was far higher in the UK than any other EU member state.[16]
From the late Nineties onwards, however, poverty began to fall steadily, helped by policies such as big increases in national insurance benefits[17] and the introduction of the national minimum wage.[18] Using the 60% of median income after housing costs poverty line, the percentage of the British population living in poverty rose to 25.3% in 1996/97, compared with 13.7% in 1979. From 1997/98 to 2004/05 (using the same 60% of median income after housing costs measurement), the percentage of the population living in poverty fell from 24.4% to 20.5%. Poverty rose again from 2005/06 onwards, reaching 22.5% of the population in 2007/08, before falling again to 22.2% in 2008/09.[19]
In 2010, a Eurostat report estimated that 17.1% of Britons were at risk of poverty, after social transfers were taken into account.[20]
How poverty in the United Kingdom is defined and measured
Poverty is defined by the Government as ‘household income below 60 percent of median income’. The median is the income earned by the household in the middle of the income distribution.[21]
In the year 2004/2005, the 60% threshold was worth £183 per week for a two adult household, £100 per week for a single adult, £268 per week for two adults living with two children, and £186 per week for a single adult living with two children. This sum of money is after income tax and national insurance have been deducted from earnings and after council tax, rent, mortgage and water charges have been paid. It is therefore what a household has available to spend on everything else it needs.[22]
Consider also:
"There are basically three current definitions of poverty in common usage: absolute poverty, relative poverty and social exclusion.
Absolute poverty is defined as the lack of sufficient resources with which to keep body and soul together.
Relative poverty defines income or resources in relation to the average. It is concerned with the absence of the material needs to participate fully in accepted daily life.
Social exclusion is a new term used by the Government. The Prime Minister described social exclusion as "…a shorthand label for what can happen when individuals or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and family breakdown". - House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee [23]
In the early Eighties, Tony Byrne and Colin F. Padfield defined relative poverty in Britain as a situation in which people are able to survive adequately, but they are either less well off than they used to be (such as when they retire from paid employment) or that they are at a serious disadvantage “in their ability to experience or enjoy the standard of life of most other people – for example, not being able to afford an annual holiday.”[24]
It is expected that the official measure of poverty, for which households earning less than 60% of median income fall into, will be redefined.[25]This proposed redefinition has led to accusations that the figures are being fixed.[25]
Other forms of poverty
Water poverty is defined by the Government as spending more than 3% of disposable income on water bills. Nationally, in 2006, nearly 10% of households were in water poverty.[26]
Fuel poverty. A fuel poor household is one that struggles to keep adequately warm at reasonable cost. The most widely accepted definition of a fuel poor household is one which needs to spend more than 10% of its income on all fuel use and to heat the home to an adequate standard of warmth. This is generally defined as 21°C in the living room and 18°C in the other occupied rooms.[27][28]
Causes of poverty
Current/recent figures
Defining the poverty line as those individuals and households with incomes less than 60% of their respective medians:
- In 2009-2010, the percentage of the population living in relative poverty stood at 17.1% (before housing costs) and 22.2% (after housing costs).[31]
- 17-18% of the population are found to be in poverty at any one time consistently, from 1994-2004. Source: BBC News [32]
- In 2003 to 2004, 21% of children lived in households below the poverty line. After housing costs are taken into account, this rises to 28%.[33]
- 3.9 million single people in the UK were living below the poverty line in 2005. Many of these people are divorced women. (Poverty among single people is not as high profile as that suffered by families and pensioners). Source: The Elizabeth Finn Trust/BBC News [34]
- Nearly 60% of those in poverty are homeowners. Source: BBC News[35]
Comparisons with other countries
Percentage of people living below 60% median income (ascending order):
Source: Luxembourg Income Study & J.Hills/BBC News [36]
Historical measurements of poverty
Seebohm Rowntree chose a basic 'shopping basket' of foods (identical to the rations given in the local workhouse), clothing and housing needs - anyone unable to afford them was deemed to be in poverty. By 1950, with the founding of the modern welfare state, the 'shopping basket' measurement had been abandoned.
The vast and overwhelming majority of people that fill the government's current criteria for poverty status (see above) have goods unimaginable to those in poverty in 1900. Poverty in the developed world is often one of perception; people compare their wealth with neighbours and wider society, not with their ancestors or those in foreign countries. Indeed this is formalised in the government's measure of poverty. A number of studies have shown that though prosperity in the UK has greatly increased, the level of happiness people report has remained the same or even decreased since the 1950s [37][38]
External link: A history of milestones - BBC, information on historical measurements of poverty.
See also
Viewpoints of major political parties
Labour Party
When leader of the Labour Government, Tony Blair vowed in 1999 to cut child poverty 25% by 2005, 50% by 2010 and to eradicate child poverty completely by 2020.
The Labour Party website states:
"In 1997 Labour inherited one of the highest rates of child poverty in Europe – with one in three children living in poverty. Our mission to abolish child poverty is grounded both in our determination to secure social justice, and to tackle the problems that the social exclusion of children builds up for the long-term. Work is the best route out of poverty and our successful welfare to work measures have lifted millions out of poverty including disabled people, who have too often previously been consigned to a life on benefits. At the same time, millions of families are benefiting from the Child tax credit, the Working tax credit, and record rises in Child benefit." [3]
Their 2005 manifesto [39] states:
"[Since the Labour government came to power in 1997] there are two million fewer children and nearly two million fewer pensioners living in absolute poverty."
In a report covering only the East of England, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that in 2004/2005, 22% of children in the East of England lived in families on low incomes. This compares to the 26% of children in low income families in 1998/1999, showing child poverty had been reduced. The JRF noted that the Government had missed its official target of reducing child poverty by a quarter between 1998/1999 and 2004/2005.
Conservative Party
In late November 2006, the Conservative Party garnered headlines across the press when a senior member spoke out on poverty, invoking the name of Polly Toynbee.
The headlines began when David Cameron's policy advisor and shadow minister Greg Clark wrote:
"The traditional Conservative vision of welfare as a safety net encompasses another outdated Tory nostrum - that poverty is absolute, not relative. Churchill's safety net is at the bottom: holding people at subsistence level, just above the abyss of hunger and homelessness. It is the social commentator Polly Toynbee who supplies imagery that is more appropriate for Conservative social policy in the twenty first century." [40][41]
This provocative approach generated much comment and analysis.[42]
It was followed two days later by Cameron saying poverty should be seen in relative terms to the rest of society, where people lack those things which others in society take for granted, "those who think otherwise are wrong [...] I believe that poverty is an economic waste, a moral disgrace. [...] We will only tackle the causes of poverty if we give a bigger role to society, tackling poverty is a social responsibility [...] Labour rely too heavily on redistributing money, and on the large, clunking mechanisms of the state."[43]
