qualitative research questions about poverty

Login | Register

• Current Issues
• Previous Issues
• Editorial Team
• Managerial Board
• Become a Reviewer
• Submission Guidelines
• Harvard Citation Style
• Vancouver Citation Style
• APA Citation Style
• Download RIS
• Download BibTeX

Thematically Synthesizing the Qualitative Evidence Reporting the Impact of Poverty Alleviation Programs in Low-income Communities in South Africa: A Review

• Madoda Sitshange (University of Stellenbosch)

Significant poverty levels raise critical questions about the impact of poverty eradication programs. Literature reviews play a critical role in highlighting impactful and ineffective socio-economic approaches. This article presents a review of nine qualitative studies that were reported between 2006 and 2013 in poor urban, semi-rural, and rural communities in South Africa. The main goal of this paper is to describe how low-income communities were impacted by programs to reduce poverty. Themes on strength-based interventions, participation, and holistic-multidimensional approaches, emerge from the content analysis as the best account of the impact of community-based poverty eradication programs. Due to the qualitative nature of the small sample of studies under review, a thematic synthesis of the qualitative data provides baseline evidence for further research to assess progress in the provision of development programs, and to generate more insight to strengthen evidence-informed approaches to address persistently high rates of poverty.

Keywords: poverty eradication, community-based programs, thematic synthesis, systematic review, qualitative evidence, social development

Sitshange, M., (2024) “Thematically Synthesizing the Qualitative Evidence Reporting the Impact of Poverty Alleviation Programs in Low-income Communities in South Africa: A Review”, Social Development Issues 46(3): 7. doi: https://doi.org/10.3998/sdi.6771

Downloads: Download XML Download PDF

9 Downloads

Published on 04 sep 2024, peer reviewed, creative commons attribution 4.0, introduction.

A higher rate of poverty indicates that South Africa might not reach the 2030 National Development Plan (NDP) target of reducing poverty-induced hunger to 0 percent ( National Development Plan, 2012 ). The Human Development Report (HDR) presented data showing that 18.9 percent of the population, about 11 million South Africans, live on less than R28 ($1.90) for a day. In terms of the Human Development Index, a measurement of equality developed by the United Nations (UN) that ranks countries by analyzing their quality of life against their rate of industrial development, ranked South Africa 114 out of 189 countries due to its declining standard of living and deepening income inequality ( Human Development Report, 2022 ). Since the COVID-19 pandemic, inequality worsened as the country has dropped two levels lower on the index as a result of more than 2 million job losses ( Human Development Report, 2022 ; World Bank, 2022 ).

Consistent with the statistics that are reported by global development agencies, Statistics South Africa reported that 55.5 percent of the South African population could not afford to meet their basic needs ( Stats SA, 2017 ). In terms of the Gini coefficient index, which measures inequality on a scale from 0 to 1 (where the higher values indicate higher inequality), inequality rose from 0.66 in 1993 to 0.72 in 2006: despite a decrease from 2006 to 0.68 in 2015, South Africa is the most unequal country in the world ( Stats SA, 2017 ). The World Inequality Report presented data showing that in 2014 the richest 10 percent of the population received two-thirds of the national income, while the top 1 percent received 20 percent of the national income ( Alvaredo, Chancel, Piketty, Saez, & Zucman, 2018 ).

Women make up a large percentage of the poor. Compared to male-headed households, poverty is consistently higher in female-headed households. In 2015, poverty was found to be 51.2 percent among female-headed households compared to 31.4 percent in male-headed households ( Stats SA, 2019 ). Gender “…disparities are still predominant in South Africa’s labor market with unemployment at 29.5 for women and 26.1 for men” (National Development Agency, 2019:10). In addition to gender inequality, racial disparities continue to define post-apartheid South Africa socio-economic fault lines. While the post-1994 government social and economic transformation policies improved the living conditions of many black South Africans, many still live in poverty. Unemployment rates are 30.5 percent for black Africans and 8 percent for whites. Race still affects the ability to find a job, as well as the wages received once employed ( World Bank, 2018 ).

Literature Review

The reviewer’s content analysis of the qualitative studies under review was guided by theoretical perspectives in poverty studies. According to Bradshaw (2007) , five main theoretical perspectives provide a comprehensive view of the causes, effects, and solutions to poverty: (1) Individual deficiencies, (2) Cultural belief systems that support subcultures in poverty, (3) Political-economic distortions, (4) Geographical disparities, or (5) Cumulative and circumstantial origins.

Theoretical perspectives on poverty that proffer individualistic, systematic, and cyclical explanations are summarized in Table 1 advanced into a variety of multidimensional perspectives that inform contemporary analysis and research. According to Adetoro, Ngidi, and Danso-Abbeam (2023), “a multidimensional approach has been developed to analyze a wide range of multiple poverty interrelated levels involving severe deprivation of basic human needs, such as health, education, income-generation and living standards”. The Human Development Report (2022) links the concept of multidimensional poverty with a lack of clean water, inadequate access to healthcare services, malnutrition, poor health, and poor housing conditions.

Five theories of poverty

Source: Adopted from Bradshaw (2007) .

There seem to be definite areas of alignment between the South African social security system and the multidimensional poverty formulation. The Department of Social Development provides comprehensive social assistance programs for indigent individuals and families to access a range of benefits such as cash transfers, food aid, and a range of welfare services. Free basic education, free health care, and free social housing are part of social benefits that are provided by housing, health, and education government departments. A multi-departmental approach that collectively provides a range of poverty reduction programs is consistent with a multidimensional theoretical approach to poverty that is applied on a national scale to address inequality, vulnerability, and urban-to-rural poverty ( Mert & Kadioglu, 2016 ). Uni-dimensional assessments of poverty that look at monetary value and consumption, in conjunction with broader multi-dimensional approaches that focus on child poverty, early childhood development and literacy, are indicative of a dynamic theory of poverty that incorporates most of the elements in Bradshaw’s (2007) theory of poverty which considers individualistic to economic-political factors.

Zizzamia, Schotte, and Leibbrandt (2019) posit the concept of poverty dynamics, as referring to a fluid state where individuals, families, and communities experience cyclical periods of chronic poverty, transient poverty, and vulnerable poverty. In expanding on the poverty dynamics perspective, Schotte, Zizzamia, and Leibbrandt (2018) define fluid and cyclical poverty situations as conditions where the chronic poor are trapped in poverty, the transient poor are classified as below the poverty line but with above-average chances of escaping poverty, and the vulnerable are classified as above the poverty line but with above-average chances of falling into poverty. In terms of the poverty dynamics theory, a considerable share of the South African population can be classified as the transient poor and the vulnerable group, estimated as 27 percent of the population ( Zizzamia et al., 2019 ). The poverty dynamics theory draws attention to the rural and urban working poor as most vulnerable due to economic instability and volatile labor markets, irregular forms of employment, and government incompetence, which makes poverty a constant threat in their daily lives, hence are the largest population group that are beneficiaries of poverty alleviation programs.

Contextualization

Meta-synthesizing several qualitative studies sharing similar themes and methods is a well-tested scientific method for assessing and presenting broader experiences ( Graham & Masters-Awatere, 2020 ), which only some research studies can provide. The overriding aim of this article is to present a review of a small sample of primary research studies, that apply qualitative procedures to report data on the impact of poverty eradication programs, by addressing the following questions: In what ways did beneficiaries of community-based poverty eradication programs describe, in their own words, their impact? How did the beneficiaries of poverty eradication programs perceive the extent to which their living conditions improved because of poverty eradication programs?

The two research questions that guide the content analysis of qualitative studies are aimed at highlighting practices and approaches that are associated with positive and negative program outcomes. A review that focuses on program impact might contribute to the knowledge that the implementers of social development interventions need to strengthen the provision of poverty eradication programs. Global, regional, national, and/or local poverty eradication program providers require analysis of program impact to reduce high rates of poverty. Drawing key lessons from systematic reviews, using a review of literature in the paper is in line with the consensus in the research literature that (reviews) play an important role in documenting and disseminating scientific evidence on the impact of programs ( Hlongwa & Hlongwana, 2020 ; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ).

A review of poverty eradication programs implemented between 2006 and 2013 is intended to contribute to Lombard’s (2008) 10-year review of the implementation of the White Paper for Social Welfare (1997). The reviewer’s intention in presenting a thematic synthesis of studies focusing on poverty eradication is motivated by a need to provide another perspective on the progress of the social development approach by addressing both the root causes and effects of poverty.

Methodology

A thematic synthesis of qualitative studies on poverty eradication is guided by the question: How were the intended beneficiaries impacted by community-based poverty eradication programs? In addressing the research question, the reviewer sought to highlight themes and trends that may assist in reporting progress in the implementation of social development approaches.

The following keywords in the research report titles, abstracts, keywords, and text, guided the search for qualitative studies: “poverty/poverty-eradication/poverty-alleviation/poverty-reduction/anti-poverty”, “social exclusion”, “community-based program(s)/project(s)”, and “program/project impact”. The reviewer sourced relevant literature through an electronic search using the following databases: Social Science Citation Index on the Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Social Science Database. A desktop internet search formed a critical part of the search, and some unpublished studies were accessed through the expert opinion of social development researchers. An online search of research reports in development studies, economics, social work, social development, politics, public health, sociology, psychology, and related social sciences and/or humanities disciplines, formed an essential part of the desktop internet search. Peer-reviewed online scientific publications were also examined. University websites were also searched for unpublished dissertations and technical research reports that focus on poverty eradication programs.

The entire search yielded studies that were reported during 2006–2013. This 10-year period is crucial for tracking and assessing progress since the social development approach became official policy, through the White Paper for Social Welfare (1997). The search for qualitative studies produced 76 research reports. The reviewer screened the 76 research studies using the inclusion and exclusion criteria, as presented in Table 2 .

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

After a comprehensive search of the literature, the reviewer applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria on the titles, abstracts, keywords, and text of the 76 reports to remove excluded and duplicated reports. While this is a review of literature, the Preferred Re-porting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) ( Shamseer et al., 2015 ) was applied by the reviewer, to explain the process used to arrive at studies selected for thematic synthesis, as outlined in Figure 1 .

Systematic review process-map.

Of the 76 studies, 16 studies were sourced through a desktop internet search, while an electronic database search yielded 60 studies. Of the 76 studies that represent data on issues related to poverty eradication, social exclusion, and community-based programs, 59 were excluded: 47 mainly because they are quantitative studies, eight use poverty definitions that are inconsistent with the literature review, another set of eight studies did not report the impact of community-based programs, while six studies neither indicate whether ethics clearance was obtained nor peer-review was conducted. Of the 17 studies that complied with the inclusion criteria, further screening narrowed down the number to 15, because two studies were duplicates. After further full-text eligibility assessment, the reviewer narrowed down the number to nine short-listed studies. After re-applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria on the short-listed studies, the reviewer arrived at nine final qualitative studies to be reviewed.

A blind procedure, where a second reviewer, without knowledge of the nine short-listed studies, repeated the process-map that is outlined above, by applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria to the 76 selected studies. The second reviewer confirmed the suitability of the nine studies selected for inclusion in the systematic review. All the included studies were debated to address any inconsistencies and areas of ambiguity as far as the inclusion and exclusion criteria required, and whether the processing of studies through the process-map was standardized and replicable. All nine studies listed in Table 2 are included mainly because of three factors: they all address “‘poverty/poverty-eradication/poverty-alleviation/poverty-reduction/anti-poverty”, “social exclusion”, “community-based program(s)/project(s)”, present qualitative data, and underwent ethics clearance or were peer-reviewed. Adato, Carter, and May (2006) explore household poverty traps and social exclusion. Mashau (2006) and Nkosi (2010) investigate the poverty situation and the impact of a strategy for poverty alleviation in rural and urban areas, while Van der Merwe (2006) provides a description and analysis of the very personal, subjective experience of poverty by Afrikaans-speaking people.

Stephen (2008) , explores factors that might have an impact on the communities’ anti-poverty projects. The study focuses on four projects: two agricultural projects and two non-agricultural projects. Blaauw, Viljoen, and Schenck’s (2011) study sought to determine the prevalence of child-headed households in Gauteng in order to establish a database and to ensure access to aid programs by needy child-headed households. Strydom, Wessels, and Strydom’s (2010) study assesses the effects of health issues and poverty on families in rural areas. Kaeana and Ross (2012) investigated beneficiaries’ perceptions of income-generating projects as alleviators or perpetrators of poverty, and lastly, Sikrweqe (2013) assessed whether a local program contributed towards achieving the goals of poverty reduction.

Table 3 further outlines the sample number and type, the age range of the participants, data collection procedures, and the geographical locations where each study was conducted. All the studies present qualitative data. A study with the smallest sample number reported four participants and a study with the largest sample size reported 700 participants. The age range of the respondents in all nine studies fell within the 18–60 bracket. All the studies (n = 9) interviewed people living and working in underprivileged communities. An overview of geographical areas where the qualitative data were collected shows that the studies were collected in five provinces in South Africa: Gauteng (n = 3), KwaZulu-Natal (n = 2), Limpopo (n = 2), Northern Cape (n = 1), and the Eastern Cape (n = 1).

Studies included in the systematic review.

Guided by relevant theoretical perspectives in poverty, social development, and community-based programs, the reviewer content analyzed the studies by coding of text “line-by-line”; followed by the development of “descriptive themes”; and lastly, the generation of “analytical themes” ( Thomas & Harden, 2008 ; Tong, Palmer, Craig, & Strippoli, 2016 ). “Thematic analysis” completed the identification and confirmation of emerging themes ( Thomas & Harden, 2008 ), and allowed the reviewer to present the qualitative evidence directly from the studies under review. The procedure that was followed by the reviewer enabled explicit translation of the qualitative data by “…synthesizing them in a transparent way, and facilitating the explicit production of new concepts and hypotheses” ( Thomas & Harden, 2008 , p. 1).

Results and Discussion

A thematic synthesis of 2006 to 2013 qualitative studies on the impact of community-based women empowerment programs.

The discussion of findings is presented under three themes: strength-based interventions, participation, and holistic, multi-dimensional approaches. Guided by the literature on poverty eradication, social exclusion, and community-based programs, a comprehensive content analysis of the qualitative data from the studies selected for review enabled the extraction and presentation of the following discussion of the research results.

Strength-based interventions

A content analysis of community-based poverty eradication programs shows that developing the strength of indigent individuals and families is crucial. Strydom et al.’s (2010) study highlights the importance of linkages between the well-being and happiness of beneficiaries and social services providers’ acceptance and enhancement of their (i.e., beneficiaries of poverty-eradication programs) strengths, and material and human resources. The impact of programs, in other words, will be greatly enhanced by leveraging underutilized personal and group coping and survival capabilities. Leveraging underutilized coping and survival capabilities might sustain the structure and functioning of indigent individuals, families, and communities ( Strydom et al., 2010 ). In an urban setting, Van der Merwe (2006 , p.141) posits that psychosocial programs “…need to capitalise on existing strengths and cultivate new personal strengths such as self-confidence, creativity, and capacity for hard work, self-determination, optimism and faith”.

Authors specifically identify social connections, as opposed to social isolation and social exclusion, as crucial for community-based programs to empower indigent individuals and families, to access income-generating opportunities or to cope better in times of periodical cycles of vulnerability to poverty ( Adato et al., 2006 ; Blaauw et al., 2011 ; Sikrweqe, 2013 ; Strydom et al., 2010 ).

Community-based poverty eradication programs that focus on building the strengths of women and children report a crucial area that social service providers need to focus on. Nkosi’s (2010) study found that child-headed and female-headed households went beyond being passive beneficiaries of cash transfers, to using limited savings to access crucial life-skills that translated into increased school attendance, fewer risks of malnutrition, and exposure to abuse. According to Blaauw et al. (2011) , school-based poverty eradication programs play a crucial role in improving the socioeconomic circumstances of child-headed households, primarily by directly linking the development of strengths to child-headed households to directly accessing social services and cash-transfers, rather than relying on adults who might abuse the resources. Even though poverty and the scarcity of resources can cause conflict in households, the respondents in Strydom et al.’s (2010) study felt strongly that the family was their important strength. As a strength that poverty eradication programs must build on, authors present data confirming the family as a form of social capital that is best placed to stabilize basic livelihood levels, owing to the observation that families have the capacity to adapt, change, and become closer in times of social and economic shocks ( Mashau, 2006 ; Stephen, 2008 ).

Gaps in eradicating poverty through the development of individual and family strengths receive great attention in the research literature. According to Adato et al. (2006 , p. 226), for individuals and families that are considered to be living below the poverty line, “…social capital at best helps stabilize livelihoods at low levels and does little to promote upward mobility”. Access to programs that provide a combination of assets with financial value, income-generating capabilities, and access to markets to build on assets over time, could sustainably address both the root causes and effects of poverty, and upward social mobility ( Adato et al., 2006 ; Stephen, 2008 ; Van der Merwe, 2006 ). Focusing poverty eradication programs on individuals and families has its critical limitations. According to Blaauw et al.’s (2011) post-intervention analysis, 26.2 percent of households cannot support even one person with their total monthly income, while less than 40 percent would be able to support a household of two to three members, with only 11.5 percent able to support a household size of four people, and none of the respondents’ households able to support a household size of six members. Holistic and multi-dimensional poverty eradication programs require evidence-informed approaches to supplement and complement strength-based interventions that support individuals, families, and larger communities.

Participation

Participation allowed the beneficiaries of community-based poverty eradication programs to highlight progress and identify gaps in service delivery ( Kaeana & Ross, 2012 ). Sikrweqe’s (2013) study echoes the theme of opening program monitoring and evaluating the voices of the beneficiaries, by presenting data showing that ward committees went beyond improving the participation of beneficiaries, and ensuring that the beneficiaries directly influence decisions about future developments in the neighborhood. The ability of ordinary members of society to influence decisions about development issues deepens democratic practices and governance ( Sikrweqe, 2013 ). Mashau’s (2006) assessment of a flagship local job creation project, highlights a human-centered approach to a collaborative approach to poverty eradication, that brought together the combined strengths of all key stakeholders, ordinary community members, government officials, business people, and non-governmental and faith-based organizations.

At a more practical level, Van der Merwe’s (2006) study emphasizes that, where possible, the beneficiaries must participate in all important areas and phases of program implementation to promote the type of community ownership that will invest in long-term sustainability. In recognition that participation in community-based poverty eradication programs is easier said than done, authors recommend further in-depth research analysis of the impact of participation on the outcomes of poverty eradication programs ( Blaauw et al., 2011 ; Kaeana & Ross, 2012 ; Mashau, 2006 ; Nkosi, 2010 ; Stephen, 2008 ; Van der Merwe, 2006 ). According to Stephen (2008) , least participatory programs tended to have pensioners as the majority of beneficiaries, thereby sensitizing social service providers to be more realistic and strategic in customizing models of participation to be more consistent with the capabilities of the intended beneficiaries.

The main conclusion in Kaeana and Ross’s (2012) study is that income-generating projects achieved their aims to some extent, but there were areas of improvement in terms of the participation of beneficiaries in decision-making. In reiterating the theme of the importance and limitations of participation, Adato et al. (2006) assert that while the impact of the beneficiaries’ participation in poverty eradication programs cannot be denied, there is no compelling evidence that community participation in poverty eradication translated directly into economic advancement and the accumulation of assets with long-term financial value. The link between the level of beneficiary participation in program processes to the reduction of poverty appears to be complex and still to be sufficiently examined, especially when participation occurs within holistic and multi-dimensional approaches.

Holistic and multi-dimensional approaches

A comprehensive and integrated research-informed approach to establish a local and contextually grounded database, according to Blaauw et al. (2011) and Strydom et al. (2010) , sets a standard for poverty to be addressed as the main target of health, development, education, employment creation, and environmental programs. A holistic, multi-disciplinary, and multi-dimensional approach to poverty eradication could be more impactful, in respect of the data that shows that poverty mainly manifests itself in the deprivation of income-generating opportunities, housing, lack of clean water, sanitation, health services, electricity, literacy, public infra-structure, and so on ( Mashau, 2006 ; Sikrweqe, 2012; Stephen, 2008 ; Strydom et al., 2010 ).

According to Kaeana and Ross’s (2012) study, a holistic and multi-pronged approach to poverty eradication needs to integrate income generation and employment creation, the provision of social and physical infrastructure including clinics and schools, measures to address social exclusion and institutionalized racism, xenophobia and sexism, the promotion of sustainable livelihoods, and the dissemination of the type of knowledge and skills that fosters human development at the community level. Community-based programs to raise awareness, through education and skills development are central themes that are frequently reported by the studies under review. For instance, more impactful community-based poverty eradication programs had more beneficiaries with secondary school education, while the worst performing were fewer ( Blaauw et al., 2011 ; Mashau, 2006 ; Nkosi, 2010 ; Van Der Merwe, 2006 ).

Deeper structural changes require innovative and novel approaches in light of growing levels of poverty, unemployment, and socio-economic inequality. According to some authors, the broader problem of “…poverty alleviation seems unlikely to be resolved until deeper structural changes make time and markets work more effectively for the broader community of all South Africans” ( Adato et al., 2006 , p. 245). A theme that cuts across most studies is that current social security programs play a significant role in alleviating poverty, but because of the growing inequality, the social security systems need to be improved to address gaps and shortcomings ( Adato et al., 2006 ; Kaeana & Ross, 2012 ; Sikrweqe, 2012). The research participants in Nkosi’s (2010) study, correctly recommend that gaps and weaknesses in social security programs can be best addressed through intersectoral collaborations between governmental and non-governmental service providers, in conjunction with the training of beneficiaries as a key element towards the sustenance of program impact and comprehensive service delivery. The findings are consistent will the assertion that policymakers recognize the integrated approach as more effective in low-middle-income countries ( Kumar & Cheng, 2024 ).

Recommendations

Similar to systematic reviews, literature reviews analyze an ever-growing scope of research on “best practices” for policy-making and policy evaluation ( Sundberg & Taylor-Gooby, 2013 ; Van Rooyen, Steward, & De Wet, 2012 ). This paper reviews the qualitative evidence to highlight approaches in poverty eradication that can be inferred as impactful and ineffective, subject to more advanced analysis through large-scale reviews that apply qualitative and quantitative methods. This article recommends further systematic reviews that will analyze studies conducted between 2016 and 2023, to provide a more recent and comprehensive picture of the progress and challenges related to social development programs. Reviews place greater emphasis on transparency and accountability ( Thomas & Harden, 2008 ), by providing an overview of impactful and ineffective approaches that no single study can provide. Themes on beneficiaries’ strengths and direct involvement in crucial phases of holistic and multi-multidimensional community-development processes, emerge in the paper as significant to track in forthcoming systematic reviews. Training and research in the three themes outlined above are key areas of focus in assessing progress in the implementation of the social development approach. As noted in a related paper, training “emerges as an important option in expanding the prospects of the intended beneficiaries of community-based programs” ( Sitshange, 2022 ).

Conclusions

Reviews are critical in evaluating the impact of poverty eradication programs. According to the authors, poverty alleviation programs have been ineffective and unsustainable ( Dipela & Mohapi, 2021 ; Raniga, 2018 ), hence high rates of poverty are consistently reported by statisticians. Reviewers of research studies have a responsibility to beyond painting the impact of poverty through numbers, to highlighting the impact of programs using the voices of community members. The thematic synthesis of qualitative research studies in poverty eradication notes a gap between theory and practice. While laws, policies, and institutions are in place to eradicate poverty, reviews need to empower relevant laws, policies, and institutions to prove impact and sustainability using evidence-based frames of reference. While the review that is presented in the paper is qualitative and limited, it lays a basis for more advanced studies on the impact of poverty eradication programs on individuals and groups.

Adato, M., Carter, M. R., & May, J. (2006). Exploring poverty traps and social exclusion in South Africa using qualitative and quantitative data. The Journal of Development Studies , 42(2), 226–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220380500405345 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220380500405345

Adetoro, A. A., Ngidi, M. S. C., & Danso-Abbeam, G. (2023). Towards the global zero poverty agenda: Examining the multidimensional poverty situation in South Africa. SN Social Sciences , 3(148), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-023-00735-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-023-00735-2

Alvaredo, F., Chancel, L., Piketty, T., Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (2018). World Inequality Report 2018, World Inequality Lab.

Blaauw, D., Viljoen, K., & Schenck, R. (2011). “Life is not pap and vleis”: Poverty in child-headed households in Gauteng. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk , 47(2), 138–154. https://doi.org/10.15270/47-2-132 https://doi.org/10.15270/47-2-132

Bradshaw, T. K. (2007). Theories of poverty and anti-poverty programs in community development. Journal of the Community Development Society , 38(1), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330709490182 https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330709490182

Dipela, M. P., & Mohapi, B. (2021). Barriers affecting effective monitoring and evaluation of poverty alleviation projects within Waterberg District. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk , 57(3), 278–301. https://doi.org/10.15270/57-3-948 https://doi.org/10.15270/57-3-948

Graham, R., & Masters-Awatere, B. (2020). Experiences of Māori of Aotearoa New Zealand’s public health system: A systematic review of two decades of published qualitative research. Aust NZ J Public Health , 44(3), 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12971 https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12971

Hlongwa, M., & Hlongwana, K. (2020). Men’s perspectives on HIV self-testing in sub-Saharan Africa: A qualitative systematic review protocol. JBI Evid Synth , 18(3), 571–575. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00097 https://doi.org/10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00097

Human Development Report. (2022). Report to explore uncertainty in the Anthropocene . United Nations: Geneva.

Kaeana, R., & Ross, E. (2012). Income-generating projects: Alleviating or perpetuating poverty. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk , 48(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.15270/48-1-102 https://doi.org/10.15270/48-1-102

Kearney, M. H. (2001). Enduring love: Grounded formal theory of women’s experience of domestic violence. Research in Nursing and Health , 24(4), 270–282. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.1029 https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.1029

Kumar, V., & Cheng, S. C. (2024). A comparative literature review of integrated approach in health care in high and low-middle-income countries. Social Development Issues , 46(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.3998/sdi.5294 https://doi.org/10.3998/sdi.5294

Lombard, A. (2008). The implementation of the white paper for social welfare. The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher , 20(2), 154–173. http://hdl.handle.net/2263/9739 http://hdl.handle.net/2263/9739

Mashau, T. D. (2006). Towards a strategy for poverty alleviation in Mashau . Master’s diss., North-West University.

Mert, K., & Kadioglu, H. (2016). Nursing interventions to help prevent children from working on the streets. International Nursing Review , 63(3), 429–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.12301. Epub 2016 Jul 19. PMID: 27430362. https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.12301. Epub 2016 Jul 19. PMID: 27430362.

National Development Plan. (2012). National Development Plan 2030: Our future make it work . Pretoria: National Planning Commission.

Nkosi, B. W. G. (2010). An impact of flagship program: An approach to poverty alleviation . Master’s diss., University of Zululand.

Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences . Oxford: Blackwell.

Porritt, K., Gomersall, J. C., & Lockwood, C. S. (2014). Study selection and critical appraisal. AJN American Journal of Nurs-ing , 114(6), 47–52. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000450430.97383.64 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000450430.97383.64

Raniga, T. (2018). Poverty alleviation, social protection policy and sustainability of economic development cooperatives: Voices of women residing in Bhambhayi, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk , 54(4), 394–406. https://doi.org/10.15270/54-4-668 https://doi.org/10.15270/54-4-668

Republic of South Africa (RSA). (1997). Ministry of Welfare and Population. White Paper for Social Welfare. Notice 1008 of 1997. Government Gazette , 368, (18166). Pretoria: Government Printer.

Schotte, S., Zizzamia, R., & Leibbrandt, M. (2018). A poverty dynamics approach to social stratification: The South Africa case. World Development , 110 (2018), 88–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.05.024 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.05.024

Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., et al. (2015). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P): Elaboration and explanation. BMJ , 586, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647

Sikrweqe, N. P. (2013). Integrated development planning as a poverty reduction strategy in the King Sabata Dalindyebo Municipality, Eastern Cape Province . Master’s diss., University of South Africa.

Sitshange, M. (2022). A thematic synthesis of income-generating studies conducted from 2007 to 2012 in Gauteng, Limpopo and KwaZulu-Natal: A systematic review of the qualitative evidence. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk , 58(4), 382–393. https://doi.org/10.15270/58-4-1072 https://doi.org/10.15270/58-4-1072

Statistics South Africa (Stats SA). (2017). Poverty Trends in South Africa. An examination of absolute poverty between 2006 and 2015 . Pretoria: Statistics South Africa.

Statistics South Africa (Stats SA). (2019). Marginalised Groups Indicator Report. Report No. 0319-05. Retrieved from https://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/03-19-05/03-19-052019.pdf https://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/03-19-05/03-19-052019.pdf

Stephen, K. (2008). The impact of poverty alleviation projects in Ga-Molepo area in Polokwane Municipality, Limpopo Province . Master’s diss., University of Limpopo.

Strydom, C., Wessels, C., & Strydom, H. (2010). The role of the social worker to empower families in a deep rural community. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk , 46(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.15270/46-2-172 https://doi.org/10.15270/46-2-172

Sundberg, T., & Taylor-Gooby, P. (2013). A systematic review of comparative studies of attitudes to social policy. Social Policy & Administration , 47(4), 416–433. ISSN 0144-5596. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12027 https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12027

Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology , 8(45), 1471–2288. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45

Tong, A., Palmer, S., Craig, J. C., & Strippoli, G. F. M. (2016). A guide to reading and using systematic reviews of qualitative research. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation , 31(6), 897–903. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfu354 https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfu354

Van der Merwe, K. (2006). The phenomenology of experiencing poverty – An exploration. The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa , 2(1), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.4102/td.v2i1.311 https://doi.org/10.4102/td.v2i1.311

Van Rooyen, C., Steward, R., & De Wet, T. (2012). The impact of microfinance in Sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review of the evidence. World Development , 40(11), 2249–2262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.03.012 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.03.012

World Bank. (2018). Overcoming poverty and inequality in South Africa: An assessment of drivers, constraints and opportunities. Retrieved from https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/530481521735906534/pdf/124521-rev-ouo-south-africa-povertyand-inequality-assessment-report-2018-fnal-web.pdf https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/530481521735906534/pdf/124521-rev-ouo-south-africa-povertyand-inequality-assessment-report-2018-fnal-web.pdf

World Bank. (2022). Report on inequality in Southern Africa: An assessment of the Southern African Customs Union. Retrieved from https://www.worldbank.org/en/events/2022/03/09/inequality-in-southern-africa-an-assessment-of-the-southern-african-customs-union https://www.worldbank.org/en/events/2022/03/09/inequality-in-southern-africa-an-assessment-of-the-southern-african-customs-union

Zizzamia, R., Schotte, S., & Leibbrandt, M. (2019). Snakes and ladders and loaded dice: Poverty dynamics and inequality in South Africa, 2008-2017 , WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2019-25, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).

Madoda Sitshange, Department of Social Work, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa and Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Johannesburg, South Africa. He can be contacted at [email protected]

Harvard-Style Citation

Sitshange, M. (2024) 'Thematically Synthesizing the Qualitative Evidence Reporting the Impact of Poverty Alleviation Programs in Low-income Communities in South Africa: A Review', Social Development Issues . 46(3) doi: 10.3998/sdi.6771

Show: Vancouver Citation Style | APA Citation Style

Vancouver-Style Citation

Sitshange, M. Thematically Synthesizing the Qualitative Evidence Reporting the Impact of Poverty Alleviation Programs in Low-income Communities in South Africa: A Review. Social Development Issues. 2024 9; 46(3) doi: 10.3998/sdi.6771

Show: Harvard Citation Style | APA Citation Style

APA-Style Citation

Sitshange, M. (2024, 9 4). Thematically Synthesizing the Qualitative Evidence Reporting the Impact of Poverty Alleviation Programs in Low-income Communities in South Africa: A Review. Social Development Issues 46(3) doi: 10.3998/sdi.6771

Show: Harvard Citation Style | {% trans 'Vancouver Citation Style' %}

Non Specialist Summary

This article has no summary

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 ]

Those Who Were Born Poor: A Qualitative Study of Philippine Poverty

• Journal of Counseling Psychology 55(2):158-171
• 55(2):158-171

• University of North Florida

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Mira Michelle Angeli De Guzman
• Ma. Elizabeth Macapagal

• CURR PSYCHOL

• Shengqi Zou
• Daoqun Ding

• Francie Kaye Sabalza

• SPAN J PSYCHOL

• Asley E. Lytle
• Maed Josel T.Tallo
• Dr. Mary Leanne A. Laganhon

• Joe L. Kincheloe

• Bernice Lott
• Y.S. Lincoln

• B.L. Neiger
• K.L. Kumpfer
• R.L. Jarrett
• Hector F. Myers
• Sylvie Taylor
• L.E. Harrison
• Juliet M. Corbin
• Anselm Strauss
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

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 .

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

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

Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to the Study of Poverty: Taming the Tensions and Appreciating the Complementarities

2012, The Qualitative Report

There is a germane relationship between qualitative and quantitative approaches to social science research. The relationship is empirically and theoretically demonstrated by poverty researchers. The study of poverty, as argued in this article, is a study of both numbers and contextualities. This article provides a general overview of qualitative and quantitative approaches to poverty studies and argues that only a combination of the two approaches, where necessary, would provide a robust, rich and reliable data for researching issues of poverty. Hence, the contemporary drive towards a mixed methods approach in poverty research is not only welcomed but certainly timely as well. Thus, understanding ontological and epistemological paradigms about social sciences is imperative in dousing such tensions. Key Words: Qualitative Research, Quantitative Research, Mixed Method Approach, Philosophical Assumptions. Historically, poverty has always been an issue continuously attracting attention ...

Related Papers

This paper discusses whether or, not quantitative method should alone be used to inform policy intervention to tackle poverty. While doing so the issues of ontology, epistemology, validity, reliability and generalisability will be examined within two of the most important research approaches, i.e., quantitative and qualitative, to identify their merits and shortcomings.

Caterina Ruggeri Laderchi

This paper reviews and analyses the literature on participatory methods in poverty analysis. The popularity of participatory poverty assessments has greatly increased in the last decade, and a growing number of development agents is adopting some form of participatory methodology. This spread however seems to be possible even without a shared understanding of what participation stands for. This paper starts by introducing the broad lines of the debate on participation, before focusing more specifically on participatory methods in poverty analysis. After having discussed the tools as well as the insights they provide, some recent evidence comparing participatory and nonparticipatory methods is presented. Such literature allow to highlight both the strengths and the weaknesses of participatory assessments, as well as opening the way for new approaches integrating elements of both. In the last analysis, however, the challenge to the non-extractive nature of the methodology, posed by th...

cristina margarita carbonell betancourt

Hausarbeit/Term Paper - Theories and Methods of Comparative Political Science: Qualitative Research Methods in Comparative and International Politics First Semester M.A. Public Economics, Law and Politics. Leuphana Universität Lüneburg. Grade: 1,3 Sen, A. (1983). Poor, Relatively Speaking. Oxford Economic Papers , 35 (2), 153-169. Small, M., Harding, D., & Lamont, M. (2010). Reconsidering Culture and Poverty. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 629 (1), 6-27.

(Cham: Springer Nature)

Valentin Beck

This anthology constitutes an important contribution to the interdisciplinary debate on poverty measurement and alleviation. Absolute and relative poverty—both within and across state boundaries—are standardly measured and evaluated in monetary terms. However, poverty researchers have highlighted the shortfalls of one-dimensional monetary metrics. A new consensus is emerging that effectively addressing poverty requires a nuanced understanding of poverty as a relational phenomenon involving deprivations in multiple dimensions, including health, standard of living, education and political participation. This volume advances the debate on poverty by providing a forum for philosophers and empirical researchers. It combines philosophically sound analysis and genuinely global research on poverty's social embeddedness. Next to an introduction to this interdisciplinary field—which links Practical Philosophy, Development Economics, Political Science, and Sociology—it contains articles by leading international experts and early career scholars. The contributors analyse the concept of poverty, detail its multiple dimensions, reveal epistemic injustices in poverty research, and reflect on the challenges of poverty-related social activism. The unifying theme connecting this volume's contributions is that poverty must be understood as a multidimensional and socially relational phenomenon, and that this insight can enhance our efforts to measure and alleviate poverty.

The emerging scope of international development has seen an increased focus since the Cold War, on poverty reduction across developing countries. With this, newly formed concepts of poverty have entered the discourse alongside attempts to produce statistical results using measurements of poverty, to contextualize new definitions, goals and designated outcomes. Conventional methods of poverty have thus arisen and produced varied methodologies, results and implications. This essay explores some of these main methods, analysing their weaknesses and resulting biases. Throughout the essay, a running critique will emphasise the foundational problem familiar to a range of development areas, indeed not just poverty reduction. Namely that analysts all too often assume, simplify and homogenise key concepts at the root of developmental issues, in particular poverty, those affected by poverty and its causes. A caution toward categorization will propose a lens of critique over many poverty measurements, suggesting that by creating simplistic structures of which to categorize people and poverty within, we risk reducing and homogenising complex, relative and rooted realities behind why poverty exists and who these people are. A critique within itself, this also sources the common problems found in our ability to measure poverty. These discourses surrounding poverty and its measurement are vital to development, as attempts to define and measure poverty have policy implications such as resource allocation, which can greatly affect people – from the marginalised to those inflicted by any form of inequality, communities, politics, local and global interests and likewise media portrayals.

Michael W J Noble

Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development

Daniel Osabutey

Samuel Botchway

Poverty is an undesirable and intolerable state of affairs which is considered as a social, economic, political or psychological problem. The word suggests that individuals or groups who are in poverty have to be helped to change their conditions. The reduction or eradication (if possible) of this poverty problem has now become the primary focus of the socio-economic development polices of developing world governments. There is therefore the need to have a yardstick to identify the poor, tools to measure the depth of their poverty which will then assist policy makers to assess their policy impact. This paper which forms part of a literature search and review of poverty for the author’s PhD Thesis attempts to do just that. It first puts poverty in context and considers it as the absence of well-being. It explains the phenomenon and thereafter provides analysis of a wide range of measurements both qualitative and quantitative. How to use these measurements are then explained.

Samiuddin Shaikh

Poverty has posed enormous challenge to many nations and the governments of many developing countries have taken extra initiatives to develop strategic poverty reduction programs. However despite of all such measures this enigma is still intractable. There is a constant need to understand the nature, dynamics and causes of poverty in order to overcome and eradicate this menace. Therefore this study aims to examine the perception of poor people for being poor and also to examine the factors and reasons of poverty. This research draws on qualitative research method and observations since the individual interviews of 10 participants were conducted who had the earning of Rs.15000 per month. As a result this study captured the deprived people who felt being underprivileged and almost had no access to the basic needs e.g. food, house, clothing, education health facilities and many physiological needs. So much so that increasing level of societal injustice between rich and poor is constant...

Anyck Dauphin

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Shormy Halder

Melisa Gorondy Novak

Wendy Draayers

Kuwait chapter of Arabian Journal of Business & Management Review

Majid Sameti

Erik Thorbecke

World Development

Gerard Howe

Germano Mwabu

https://www.ijhsr.org/IJHSR_Vol.7_Issue.5_May2017/IJHSR_Abstract.051.html

International Journal of Health Sciences and Research (IJHSR)

IDS Bulletin

Jan Vranken

Social Indicators Research

George Ellis

Pavlos Koktsidis

David Benassi

The Social Policy Journal

Shawn Cassiman

Laura Camfield

Laurent Bonelli

The European journal of development …

Federica Misturelli , Claire Heffernan

Awangku Hassanal Bahar Pengiran Bagul , Janie Liew-Tsonis

hanyfah mustofa thalib

Michael Drinkwater , Arjan de Haan

Interim : Interdisciplinary Journal

Sefako Ramphoma

Thomas Pogge

Robert Lake

RELATED TOPICS

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