Poverty Outline—Prof. Carfield Summer 2013
I. Defining & Understanding Poverty—Ch. 1
A. What is Poverty? – 3 Approaches to Defining/Measuring
1. Absolute Terms: Lack of Material resources necessary for basic survival.
2. Relative Terms: Lack of Resources relative to others in a defined community.
è Concerned about Inequality
3. Capability Terms: Lack of capabilities or resources to “Meaningfully” participate in one’s community.
è Is an individual able to exercise those capabilities in order to Fully Participate in the community?
è e.g. Access to healthcare, education, shelter etc…
B. How we define Poverty impacts the ways in which we measure it.
è Measuring poverty allows us to determine who is eligible for certain services & benefits.
è We have a Moral Duty to alleviate poverty & measuring it helps us understand it better.
è If we can measure it we can effectively address the problems of poverty.
Absolute Relative Capabilities
Calculated: Income based Income based relative to NOT Income based; Multi-
Basic Needs (Food, Shelter) surrounding community Dimensional (Social/Cultural)
Example: US Poverty Line ($1.25/day) “US Poor” v. “World Poor” UN Human Devlp. Index
Advantages: Elimination theoretically possible Captures bigger picture More Nuanced
Reach $1.25/day and poverty
Is eradicated.
Simple Measurement
Disadvantages: Varying Needs; There will always be Rel. Very Difficult to Quantify;
No Context (Over Inclusive v. Poverty; Harder Measurement– So many criteria (e.g. Literacy
Under Inclusive) (More Value Judgments) Health, Disabilities)
Easy for Gov’ts to manipulate
Data.
C. Poverty in the US
1. 1/3 of female households live in poverty.
2. Blacks, Hispanics, & other minorities live in relatively more poverty than Whites.
3. What accounts for these differences?
a. Heritage Foundation Article: Too many people are being defined as poor in US; our poor are actually fairly well off…
i. Article attacks Poverty in America and not Inequality.
D. The “Building Model” of Inequality
1. Analyzing the Building Model
a. In General American policy there’s a belief that those who show mobility in the social hierarchy represent the opportunity (through their individual choices) that everyone can therefore move up through their choices as well.
i. American social welfare policies have reflected this:
–Unforgiving policies (Punish bad choices, reward good choices)
— Focused on helping people make better choices (Investment in education, job training etc…)
b. American policy doesn’t conceive that changing the structure of the “building”, the social system in which the participants play can be changed as well to allow for fairer competition.
i. Fixing the Systematic Issues & Changing the Rules by which participants play the “game.”
2. What does America conceive as “Good Choices?”
— Hard Work
— Undeserved Hardship (Limited Tolerance for this; Temporary assistance to get someone back on his/her feet.)
— Innovative/Capitalistic Spirit (Willingness to take risks)
3. What does America conceive
Particular one; Older workers were being discriminated against by employers.
2. Only a Power that is truly Nat’l in scope can serve the interests of ALLè Leaving it on a state-by-state basis can lead to Mass Migration from less generous to more generous states.
— Conclusion: Social Security Act is Upheld.
3. Widows & Single Mothers
a. Began as Widows’ Pensions (Morality Based)
i. Mothers provided a benefit to society by staying home and raising children.
— Didn’t want mothers entering the workforce; Widows were deserving if they provided a suitable home for their children.
b. AFDC (Aid to Families w/ Dependent Children)è Federal Gov’t provided Block Grants to States.
King v. Smith (1968)—SCOTUS
— Issue(s): 1) Does Alabama’s “Substitute Father” law violate the Soc. Sec. Act?
2) Does Alabama’s law violate Due Process under the 14th Am.?
— Holding: SCOTUS doesn’t reach constitutional question.
SCOTUS holds Alabama’s law DOES violate Social Sec. Act.
— Soc. Sec. Act defined “dependent child” in a different way than Alabama’s law did (Dependent child in AL didn’t apply if there was a man having sexual relations with the child’s mother).
–Alabama’s law was based on Morality restrictions (e.g. Having sex outside marriage).
— Conclusion: Unanimous decision; Eligibility based strictly on Financial Need.
SCOTUSè This concerns children who ARE deserving but leaves the “Single-Mother” question (are they deserving too?) open for debate.
