Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-07
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • br The Concept of Poverty

    2018-10-26


    The Concept of Poverty and Its Causes There are two ways to approach the concept of poverty in conventional theories. First of all, some researchers refuse to deal with the concept. For example, some scholars think that the concept is elusive and impossible to grasp because the meaning depends on the ways of thinking and feeling of each person (Orshansky, 1969; Samuelson and Nordhaus, 1996). Therefore, if poverty does not have a clear definition because it can be manifested in many circumstances, then its causes cannot be identified. Along this line of thought, the World Bank States (2001, 15): The World Bank addresses manifestations of poverty. However, these kinds of assertions resemble a sophism: poverty cannot be defined objectively and the definition depends on the point of view of the observer. Using Marxian methodology, we can say that this approach is superficial and does not deal with the essence of the problem. Besides, historical manifestations of poverty are studied without taking into consideration the social relations in which individuals are embedded (Davis, 1981). On the other hand, the conceptualization of poverty is associated with low levels of income or public services, which can serve to allow individuals to carry out a minimum way of life. This second approach has classical roots. As Smith (2005, 61) points out: Similarly, D. Ricardo asserts (2001, 71): In other words, it is legitimate that some human beings live at the minimum with deficient alimentation, health, education, housing, etc. On the other hand, a wealthy people can command all the facilities. A capitalist would argue that life is an open Wnt agonist 1 where all people have equal opportunities. True winners overcome all disadvantages and if poor people endure they can be affluent. What is really known, in fact, is that people who are born poor are likely to remain poor, and people who are rich continue being rich (Glyn, 2006). Being born in Africa, India, Haiti, or the Bronx is not the same as being born in the rich mountains of Switzerland. Furthermore, bronchitis is well known that money is power (Lapavitsas, 2006), and capitalists use their money to determine the sphere of politics and culture. In Athenian society, Aristotle (2001) claimed that money was not an end itself but was subordinated to politics. The bourgeoisie, however, have learned to use their money to buy politicians, intellectuals and/or a good education. Therefore, Marshall and Hayek\'s assumptions that capitalists are neutral and do not use their power is false. Notwithstanding the act of reducing human beings to live at the minimum, this approach is followed by countries, international organizations, and many researchers. First of all, the European Union (EU) (Eurostat, 2010, 9) states: In practice, the EU measures poverty in a relative way, which is established at the 60% of the national median equivalised disposable income after social transfers. Still, even in the EU the idea of a minimum way of life persists. Most people in the EU are above the survival level, but many command only the minimum to function adequately in the countries of the EU. Second, in the US, a poverty line has been established based on a basket of goods that covers minimum requirements for living (a basket of goods that contains the cost of the minimum nutritional requirements multiplied by 3). Thus: Thirdly, the World Bank defines poverty (1990, 25) as: “as “the inability to attain a minimal standard of living.” According to Konkel (2014), the World Bank has been so influential that it has marginalized the use of other concepts of poverty. Thus, a myriad of governments and researchers follow this line of thought, including Comité Técnico (2002), Fischer (1992), Gafar (1998), and Klugman and Braithwaite (1998). Even modern heterodox approaches to poverty define it in the same vein. Sen points out (1985, 669; see also 1983; 2000): “Poverty is ‘not having some basic opportunities of material well-being—the failure to have certain minimum capabilities.”’