The M ean in g o f P o v e rty A u th o r(s): P e te r T ow n sen d Sou rce: T h e B r it is h J o u r n a l o f S o c io lo g y , Vol. 13, No. 3 (Sep., 1962), pp.

210-227 P u b lish ed b y : B lack w ell P u b lish in g on b e h a lf o f The Lon don School o f E co n om ics and P o litical Science S tab le URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/587266 A ccessed: 2 6 /0 2 /2 0 0 9 09:47
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and The London School o f Economics and Political Science are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The British Journal o f Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

THE MEANING OF P O V E R T Y Peter Townsend

H E B E L I E F that poverty has been virtu ally elim inated in Britain is com m only held. It has been reiterated in parliam ent and the press and has gained authority from a stream o f books and papers published b y economists, sociologists and others in the post w ar years.1 In the main the proposition rests on three generalizations which are accepted as facts. T h e first is that full em ployment, com bined with larger real wages and the enormous increase in the numbers o f m arried women in paid em ployment, has brought prosperity to the mass o f the population. T h e second is that there has been a m arked redistribution o f income from rich to poor and, indeed, a continuing equalization o f income and wealth. A nd the third is that the introduction o f a welfare state has created a net though some prefer to use the m etaphor a feather bed which prevents nearly all those who are sick, disabled, old or unem ployed from falling below a civilized standard o f subsistence. E ach o f these generalizations needs to be exam ined carefully. W e might, for exam ple, ask whether a population o f the present size, with 400,000 registered unem ployed, constitutes a society with Tull em ploym ent ; or whether, to the official numbers o f the unem ployed, we should add m any thousands o f m arried women, handicapped persons and persons o f pensionable age who do not register with em ploym ent exchanges, but who would take certain forms o f paid work, particularly light or sheltered work, if it was available. A gain, we m ight ask whether post w ar Britain justifies the epithet o f a w elfare state in relation either to contem porary needs and resources or to the social services which existed during and before the war. But perhaps the crucial concepts em bedded in these three generaliza tions which should give us pause are those o f prosperity, equality and subsistence . I cannot attem pt to deal comprehensively with these elusive concepts. I shall m erely try to say something about the m eaning o f subsistence, which appears to govern m uch contem porary thought about the subject o f poverty. M y m ain thesis is that both poverty and subsistence are relative concepts and that they can only be defined in relation to the m aterial and emotional resources available at a particular time to the members either o f a particular society or different societies.
21 0

THE M E AN IN G OF P O V E R T Y

T h e state o f almost dazed euphoria which seems to have overtaken social scientists in the late 1940s has gradually given w ay to a more lively, if cautious, exam ination o f the peripheries o f the welfare state and even o f a few o f its nerve centres. Dr. J. H . Sheldons revelations about the state o f chronic sick hospitals in the Birm ingham region ,2 M r. Peter M arris study o f widows in East L on don ,3 M r. M erfyn T u rn ers account o f life in lodging-houses,4 Dr. Joh n W in gs and M r. George Brow ns detailed analyses o f conditions in some m ental hos pitals,5 Miss L. A . Sh aw s and Mrs. M . Bow erbanks description o f the hardship experienced b y families whose breadwinners die or are ill6 and Mrs. H arriet W ilsons description o f the economic stress experienced b y problem fam ilies7 comprise just a few o f the revealing studies which have been published in recent years. As a result o f such work and o f public interest in the problems o f some groups in the population for exam ple, homeless families and gypsies there has been greater readi ness in the last few years to concede the existence at least o f residual poverty.

THE

NUMBERS

IN P O V E R T Y , OF

ACCORDING

TO

THE

STANDARD

SUBSISTENCE

But what are the dimensions o f poverty? Everything turns on the precise m eaning given to the term. Charles Booth and Seebohm Row ntree each developed a rough definition towards the end o f the nineteenth century and the latters was broadly followed, with various modifications, in a series o f surveys during this century. In 1941 Lord Beveridge was guided by these in working out benefit rates to be paid under the new scheme o f social security to be introduced after the war. Even today the amounts paid in national insurance benefits and national assistance allowances derive w hat logic they have from his approach. Beveridge leaned heavily on R ow ntrees work. In 1950, with G. R . Lavers, Row ntree undertook his third and final survey o f the C ity o f Y o rk .8 W hatever criticisms we m ight make o f its methods it listed the levels o f income said to be needed b y different types o f households to keep clear o f poverty. For exam ple, an income o f 5 os. 2d. per week, excluding rent, was said to be needed b y a fam ily consisting o f m an and wife and three children, and 1 13^. 2d. b y an unem ployed or retired woman living alone. T h e ch ief conclusion was that 1 1 per cent o f the total population o f Y ork was in poverty in 1950, com pared with 18 per cent in the similar, but not identical, survey o f 1936. M ost o f this small group were retirem ent pensioners. Even accepting the methods used, would the conclusion have been as true o f the whole country as m any people supposed at the time? T h e M inistry o f Labour carried out a detailed survey o f the expenditure (and income) o f a random sample o f nearly 13,000 households in the 211

PETER TOWNSEND

U nited K ingdom during 1953 and the early weeks o f 1954. These households comprised some 41,000 persons. A report was published in I9579 but this did not allow more than intelligent guesses to be made about the num ber and type o f households falling below certain levels o f expenditure. Lately, with the help o f the M inistry, m y colleagues and I have had an opportunity o f studying the results in more detail and par ticularly the distributions o f expenditure. W e adjusted R ow ntrees in come standards according to the rise in prices between 1950 and 1953, and then applied them to the budget data collected by the M inistry.10 W e found that 5*4 per cent o f the households, comprising 4-1 per cent o f the persons in the sample, were in poverty, according to R ow ntrees criteria. A nother io-6 per cent o f persons were living at a standard lower than 40 per cent above the poverty line. A ltogether 14-7 per cent o f the persons in the sample were in poverty or near-poverty. Applied to the whole population these figures would suggest that there were 2-1 million persons in poverty, and another 5*4 million only m arginally better off, giving a total o f 7 | millions. T h e rather lower subsistence standard o f the National Assistance Board was also applied to these data. In 1953 the ordinary amounts p ay able by the Board were 35^. for a single householder, 59^. for husband and wife, and amounts ranging for children and other dependants in the household from i u . to 31 j ., according to their age. U sually the actual rent paid by the household could be added to these amounts. For each type o f household in the. M inistry o f Labour sample o f 1953-4, we worked out the minim um sum which it would norm ally receive in ad versity from the N ational Assistance Board. T h e total expenditure o f each household was then com pared with the national assistance rate. W e found that 2*1 per cent o f households, comprising 1-2 per cent o f the total persons in the sample, had an average weekly expenditure below the basic national assistance rates plus rent and that another 6*6 per cent o f persons had less than 40 per cent above these rates. A ltogether i o - i per cent o f households and 7-8 per cent o f persons were living at a standard less than 40 per cent above the basic national assistance rates. Some details are shown in T ab le 1. These figures m ay under-represent the proportions in poverty in the U nited K ingdom at that time. In its report the M inistry points out that persons aged 61 or more were under-represented in the sample b y about a quarter11 and our scrutiny o f the data also suggested that there was some under-representation o f the sick. It is after all understandable that poor persons, particularly those who are aged or sick, m ay find it more difficult than other persons to keep detailed expenditure records for a period o f three weeks. W ith this im portant reservation, the figures im ply that almost 4 million persons in the U nited K ingdom were in 1953-4 living below, or less than 40 per cent above, the national assistance level. Tw enty-nine per cent o f these were children under the age o f 16 (about 212

THE M EANING OF P O V E R T Y

TA B LE

Percentage of Households and Persons Living close to National Assistance Levels (national sample surveyed by the Ministry of Labour, 1953-4)
Total household expenditure as percentage of national assistance scale rate plus rent Under 90 Households % Persons %

90-99
100-119 120-139 140-159 160 and over Total | Number in sample

1-09 1 -02

3*56 4*43
5*02 84-88 100 12,911

0*4.8 0-72 2-85 377 513 87-04 100 41,090

a third o f whom were children under 5). As would be expected, a large proportion o f the total, in fact nearly half, consisted o f elderly persons or couples living alone. A nother substantial proportion consisted o f households in w hich the head was sick or unem ployed. But w hat m ay be surprising to some is that over a third were living in households where the head was working full-time, as shown in T a b le 2. M ost o f these were people living in households containing three, four or more children. TA B LE 2 Percentage of Persons Living in Households with Total Expenditure close to National Assistance Levels, According to Employment Status o f Head
Percentage of persons living in households with total expenditure of less than 40 per cent above national assistance rates plus rent

Employment status of head of household

Working full-time Working part-time Unemployed Sick Retired Total Number in sample

34*5 3*6 5*3

7-2

49*4
100 3,224

213

PETER TOWNSEND

T h e data showed that the poorest persons in the U nited K ingdom con sist chiefly o f old persons and members o f large families. Th e reasons for draw ing a line at a level o f 40 per cent above the basic national assistance rates are im portant and should be explained. First, in deciding entitlement to assistance the Board disregards certain kinds and amounts o f income, and o f savings. For example, in 1953, earnings up to 20^. a week and superannuation up to 105-. 6rf., or a dis ability pension up to 20s. could be wholly disregarded, as also could w ar savings up to 375 or other capital up to 50. A substantial pro portion o f national assistance beneficiaries receive some income which is disregarded b y the Board. There is also a reasonable presumption that its officers ignore gifts o f m oney and small allowances, as for exam ple from children to retirem ent pensioners, which are nonethe less reflected in the expenditure o f the latter. T h ey also probably ignore small windfalls such as occasional gifts from charitable organizations and winnings from the football pool companies. Second, the Board often adds certain small amounts to its basic benefits, at the discretion o f its officers, for special needs, to take account o f expenditure on special diets in old age and sickness, laundry, fuel and domestic help. Thus, in 1954 some 621,000 o f the allowances or over a third o f the total number, were increased by an average am ount o f y . 3 d. per week. T h e Board also makes single grants for exceptional needs and repays prescription charges. O f course, to calculate an aver age figure to allow for all these grants or disregards and add it to the basic rate would be difficult as well as unrealistic. These points m ay be put in a more practical way. From the 1953-4 sample we found that the expenditure o f persons living alone who were dependent w holly or partly on national assistance averaged 27 per cent, and o f m arried couples, 44 per cent, above the basic assistance rate. I f therefore we aim to find out how m any people are living below, at, or just above the standard o f living actually attained by national assistance recipients, it would appear to be justifiable to take the criterion o f 40 per cent above the basic rates. It should be remembered, o f course, that the expenditure o f a substantial num ber o f households in the sample was several hundred per cent larger than the national assistance rates and that the expenditure o f the average household was around 260 per cent o f these rates. It must be emphasized that by no means all o f those living around the national assistance level in 1953-4 were receiving it. A large number were in households prim arily dependent on the earnings o f the head. A nother large number were in households prim arily dependent on insurance benefits. T h e M inistry o f Labour data suggested that a group o f households depending on social insurance benefits, not wages, and representing about 900,000 persons in the population, were living at a standard which, prima facie , m ight have allowed a very large num ber 214

THE M EAN IN G OF P O V E R T Y

o f them to qualify for supplem entary allowances from the N ational Assistance Board. M oreover, substantial numbers o f persons in house holds with an expenditure o f more than 40 per cent higher than the level were nonetheless receiving some assistance. Some o f these were pensioners living alone. A large num ber were pensioners living, usually with children, in households prim arily dependent on a wage. Some were persons receiving the higher rates payable to those suffering from tuberculosis and blindness. T o summarize, it would appear that in 1953-4 there were, in the U nited K ingdom , (i) approxim ately 1,350,000 retirem ent pensioners and their dependants; (ii) approxim ately 900,000 widows, disabled, sick, handicapped and other persons, including members o f their fam i lies, prim arily dependent on other forms o f social security, and (iii) 1,750,000 other persons prim arily dependent on wages, all 4 million o f whom were living in households with a total expenditure less than 40 per cent above national assistance scale rates plus rent. T here were also (iv) approxim ately 600,000 retirem ent pensioners (and their dependants) and (v) approxim ately 700,000 other persons who were actually receiving or dependent on a national assistance allowance o f some kind, although the total expenditure o f the house holds in which they lived was 40 per cent or more above the basic assistance rates. This gives a total o f approxim ately 5,300,000 persons. Such analyses as I have described need to be presented in detail. W e hope to publish these shortly, not only for the year 1953-4, but also for i960.12

THE

PROBLEM

OF

DEFINING

SUBSISTENCE5 AND

A D E Q U A T E 5 NUTRITION

But is this approach to the question o f defining the nature and extent o f poverty good enough? T h e income standards applied above to the M inistry budget data are determ ined b y the rather special m eaning that has been given to the term subsistence5. In 1901 Seebohm Row ntree stated that families living in poverty were those whose total earnings are insufficient to obtain the m inim um necessaries for the m aintenance o f m erely physical efficiency5.13 H e drew up a list o f necessities under the headings o f food, clothing, fuel and household sundries, and esti m ated how m uch it would cost to buy them. O th er students o f the subject afterwards adopted a similar approach. M an y people have been uneasily aware o f the problems o f defining necessities like housing, clothing, or fuel and light. A fam ily m ight m aintain its physical efficiency just as well in a caravan, a nissen hut or even a railw ay w aiting room as in a three-bedroom council house. It could go to bed early and spend nothing on electricity. It could salvage wood from the neighbourhood rather than buy coal, and

215

PETER TOWNSEND

scrounge clothing from the W .V .S . or the Salvation A rm y. T h e bread winner m ight be more physically efficient if he walked to work and saved train fares. W e could go on interm inably debating such issues and it is evident that any standard we m ight adopt must be an arbitrary or conventional one. But uncertainty about such matters has been excused because the definition o f a fam ilys food requirements has always been supposed to be more scientifically certain, and food, from the beginning o f this century onwards, has remained the most vital com ponent o f the m ea sure o f subsistence or poverty. Shrewdly, and originally, Row ntree saw at the end o f the nineteenth century that the work o f nutritionists could be used in social surveys o f populations to illum inate, more objectively than in the past, the living standards o f poor families. Excluding rent, the am ount allocated for food in his poverty standard for a fam ily o f m an and wife and three children accounted for 72 per cent o f the total.14 H e leaned heavily on the work o f an A m erican nutritionist, A tw ater, in fixing on the nutrients required by adults and children. Broadly speaking, what he did was to select, from conflicting data, figures o f the num ber o f calories and am ount o f protein thought to be required by an average man, translate these nutritional components into a standard diet and thence into the cost o f purchasing such a diet. Y e t the determ ination o f the income needed to purchase m inimum nutrition has always been a hazardous exercise. T h e special report in 1950 o f the authoritative comm ittee on nutrition set up by the British M edical Association demonstrates this.15 W e learn from the committee that N utrition is a young and rapidly grow ing science. M uch o f the field is still unexplored or is only h a lf explored . . . There are m any gaps in the existing knowledge o f the quantitative aspects o f a m ans needs .16 A m an who spends the day in bed requires about 1,750 calories, i f he is up and about he requires another 370 and if he walks for two miles at 3 m .p.h. a further 130. He needs another 30 for each hour o f work i f it is sedentary, 70 if light effort is involved, and 200 if heavy, and 450 if exceptionally heavy effort is involved. These are the com m ittees estimates, which have been followed faithfully in annual food surveys. W om en tend to have lesser requirements. T h e difficulties o f applying such estimates (even if they were less rough and ready than they are) to a diverse population are pretty obvious. Little work has been done on the effort actually expended at the piesent time in differ ent occupations. W ith the data available, the comm ittee in fact con cluded that the problem o f classification was insoluble .17 W hen we turn to the amounts o f fat and protein said to be required in an adequate diet we find even less scientific precision. There is no convincing evidence that any individual fatty acids are indispensable for the nutrition o f man, although nutritionists generally agree that 216

THE M EANING OF P O V E R T Y

they have psychological significance and therefore should provide at least 25 per cent o f the calorific value o f the diet in order to m aintain the general character o f the food habits o f the British population. Esti mates o f protein requirements are little more than intelligent guess work5 and no convincing evidence exists o f the need for anim al as dis tinct from vegetable protein.18 D oubt also exists about the desirable intakes o f calcium , iron and various kinds o f vitam ins, particularly vitam in C .19 It is therefore im portant to rem em ber that calculations o f nutritional requirements are rough estimates subject to a wide m argin o f error. W hen putting them to practical use and converting them into fixed quantities o f foodstuffs, other hazards must be recognized. T h e nutri tional content o f certain foodstuffs varies from place to place in the country and according to season. For exam ple, the V itam in C content o f old potatoes is m uch less than that o f new potatoes. T h e first step in the traditional approach to the question o f defining and measuring poverty is difficult enough. T h e next steps becom e more difficult still. H aving obtained estimates o f nutritional requirements the investigator seeks to translate these into the cheapest possible diet. From his knowledge o f nutritional values and m arket prices he m ight tend to produce a diet giving prominence to potatoes, cabbage, bread, m ar garine and cooking fat, cheese, and fish such as herrings. Purely on nutritional and financial grounds he would be led perhaps to exclude from the diet meat, citrus fruit, tinned vegetables, frozen foods, sweets, chocolates, and fish and chips. But already we can begin to see how unrealistic this procedure m ight be. Should an allowance for sweets be m ade in the diet? T h e same energy value could be provided b y sugar or ja m and at cheaper cost. But can we ignore the fact that nearly all households are accustomed to eating sweets as a regular, i f perhaps m arginal, part o f their diet? Surely it is im portant to take account o f eating habits w hich have endured for generations and which have their physiological as well as their psychological consequences. A n d it is also im portant to rem em ber that housewives living on low incomes are influenced in m aking their purchases o f foodstuffs not only b y the tastes o f their families and friends but also b y com m ercial advertising. T h ey are educated to take account o f the virtues o f particular brands and par ticular forms o f packaging. W e cannot assume that they are well in formed about the nutritional content o f certain foods and where to obtain them most cheaply, nor can we assume, i f they are, that they are actuated only by the need to m aintain the physical efficiency o f those in their households. T e a is an even better exam ple, for it has little or no nutritional value. Should any allowance be m ade for this in the m inim um diet? D rinking tea is a widespread custom in Britain. But to say that it is custom a ry 5 m ay also m ean that it is necessary5 , and in two senses. It m ay be 217

PETER TOWNSEND

psychologically necessary, in the same sense that a habit-form ing drug is necessary. Individuals have grown up to accept and expect it. Second, it serves an im portant social function. W hen a neighbour or a relative calls, a housewife will often make a cup o f tea. True, in another society she m ight prepare coffee or open a bottle o f wine, but this is w hat she will generally do in Britain. T h e reciprocation o f small gifts and ser vices, and sharing the enjoym ent o f them, is one o f the most im por tant ways in which an individual recognizes and maintains his social relationships. This line o f analysis suggests that we cannot depend solely on a narrow interpretation o f physical efficiency5 or nutritional value in choosing a list o f necessary foodstuffs. But this is not the only difficulty. A re the foodstuffs on the list everywhere available? T h e list also has to be priced. H ow far should some allowance be made for variation in prices between different districts o f a country or even o f a town? Indeed, could some items on the list be obtained not by buying them in markets or shops, but b y grow ing them more cheaply in gardens or allotments? Row ntree and others who carried out surveys o f poverty were aware o f some o f these difficulties but tended to skate over them, eschewing anxious discussion and depending on crude methods which, even for their time, could have been bettered. Row ntree, for exam ple, referred in his first and possibly his finest book to the different calorific value o f the diet required b y men and women and by children o f different ages and yet m ade no allowance for such differences in the standard which he used in measuring poverty. Like other students o f poverty, he sought to produce a simple and uniform standard which would be relatively easy to com pare with household income. But this was done at the price o f neglecting wide variations in nutritional and other needs. Social and econom ic truths can often be blurred or concealed in inquiries w hich depend on an over-assiduous application o f the law o f averages. T h e advantages o f hindsight can always mislead us into being unduly severe in our judgm ents o f men o f distinction who pioneer difficult paths. Row ntree, Booth, Bowley and others did m uch to awaken Britain5 s social conscience and reveal the deprivations o f the poor. But we have allowed our respect for their vision and methods to dull the critical sensibilities which we need to investigate modern society.

THE

NEED

FOR

NEW

APPROACH

A lthough other evidence would be needed to provide a conclusive argum ent, perhaps enough has been said to suggest that the study o f poverty has not developed theoretically during the course o f this cen tury. O ne mistake has been to narrow attention largely to the preserva tion o f physical efficiency, w hatever that m ay mean, and by im plication to assume that the physical efficiency o f individuals can be divorced 218

THE M EAN IN G OF P O V E R T Y

from their psychological well-being and the organization and structure o f society. A nother has been to draw up a list o f basic necessities, trans late them into a certain income, and call this subsistence5. A ll students o f poverty have in fact m ade some concessions to psychological and social needs and conventions, but they have tended to write as if their subsistence standards consisted o f a list o f absolute necessities which could be applied irrespective o f time and place, rather as if a fixed yardstick could be devised and measured against a given population, whether in 1900, 1930 or 1950, and whether in Y ork, London, Sicily or Calcutta. Poverty is a dynam ic, not a static, concept. M an is not a Robinson Crusoe living on a desert island. H e is a social anim al entangled in a web o f relationships at work and in fam ily and com m unity which exert com plex and changing pressures to w hich he must respond, as m uch in his consumption o f goods and services as in any other aspect o f his behaviour. A n d there is no list o f the absolute necessities o f life to m aintain even physical efficiency or health w hich applies at any time and in any society, w ithout reference to the structure, organization, physical environment and available resources o f that society. As A lfred M arshall pointed out in 1890, . . . differences in climate and differences in custom make things necessary in some places, which are superfluous in others. . . . But . . . a more careful analysis has made it evident that there is for each rank of industry, at any time and place, a more or less clearly defined income which is necessary for merely sustaining its members; while there is another and larger income which is necessary for keeping it in full efficiency. . . . Every estimate of necessaries must be relative to place and time. H e even took the enlightened view , for his time, that some consumption o f alcohol and tobacco and some indulgence in fashionable dress5 was conventionally5 necessary.20 O ver a century previously, A dam Sm ith had said, By necessaries I understand, not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support o f life, but whatever the custom o f the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even o f the lowest order, to be w ithout5. 21 In our own day there is everything to be said for returning un asham edly to the broad theoretical outlook o f these early economists. T h e sciences o f economics and sociology sometimes seem to be im prisoned within narrow specialisms which discount the flesh and blood, and the problems, o f ordinary life. Partly as a consequence, serious mis conceptions about the nature and direction o f our society are com m only held.

219

PETER TOWNSEND
THE LEVEL OF I N C O M E IN R E L A T I O N TO LEVELS OF N U T R I T I O N

A new approach m ight be developed from a num ber o f different directions. First, despite all criticisms, more im aginative use could be m ade o f nutritional studies. But instead o f seeking the m inim um cost o f adequate5 nutrition and finding how m any families do not have an incom e sufficient to meet this cost, we could study random samples o f the population to find which and how m any families, and at w hat levels o f total income, only just achieve, or fall short of, certain levels o f nutri tion. T o establish a minim um income standard is meaningless unless we also show that there are some families with that income who do in fact secure a defined level o f nutrition. This fundam ental criticism could be made o f nearly all studies o f poverty. There is little to prevent this inform ation from being obtained. Each year the M inistry o f A griculture publishes the results o f a national food survey. Some o f the tables published in the reports com pare the energy value and nutrient content o f the diets o f different types o f households with the allowances recom m ended by the British M edical Association, expressed as an average percentage. W e see, for exam ple, in the latest report for 1959, that the average household containing a man and wom an and four or more children had a diet with an energy value falling below 100 per cent o f the requirem ent, in all social classes. A gain, the average diets o f households containing a man and woman and two or three children vary, according to social class, from 100 to 103 per cent o f the requirem ent.22 But it is strange, in view o f the im portance o f these data, that the Food Survey Com m ittee do not see fit to publish tables showing the distribution o f households around the averages. Surely it is more im portant to know how m any households o f a particular type fail to achieve a certain food standard than to know w hat they achieve on average. A n d there is no reason w hy information about the total income and source o f income o f such households should not be obtained and published. W e cannot define adequate5 nutrition except in relation to the con ventions and resources o f any particular society which we happen to be studying. T h e problem is rather like that o f trying to define adequate5 individual height. W e know that a man must have some height but can not say whether it should be four feet or seven feet. But we can show how m any men are less than four feet tall, from 4 feet to 4 feet 6 inches, and so on, and relate the figures to income and other characteristics. This, b y analogy, seems to be the only fruitful procedure.

FLUCTUATIONS

IN L I V I N G

STANDARDS

OVER

LIFE

Second, the living standards o f individuals m ight be studied in rela tion to the standards those individuals had previously experienced. In 220

THE M EAN IN G OF P O V E R T Y

com m on speech we often say that a m an is poor or in poverty because he has fallen dow n in the w orld5. O u r reference point is some previous standard o f living. A m an who experiences a drastic fall in incom e when he retires, becomes sick or disabled, or is forced to take a m uch less wellpaid job , is often described in this w ay, whether he falls from 3,000 to 1,000 a year, or 10 to 5 a week. H e cannot go on living in his accustomed m anner, and has to move to a smaller house, give up a car, reduce his expenditure on food or forgo new clothes and house furnish ings. It would be illum inating to study how people m anage in certain adversities and whether sharp fluctuations in living standards are com mon experiences. This kind o f study would am ount to a revival o f interest in the life cycle o f poverty5 , referred to in the past b y some social scientists, but never properly explored.23 It would offer a means o f finding out what individuals actually treat as expendable budget items and w hat as necessities. A few pilot studies have shown that when household income falls, say, from 10 to 5 a week, the members o f the household take a very different view from that o f moralists and economists o f w hat goods and services they must continue to b u y .24

RELATIVE

INSUFFICIENCIES

OF INCOM E

AND

WEALTH

T h ird, in an im portant sense, poverty could be defined on the basis o f the num ber o f households or families o f certain types having a total income o f less than, say, h a lf or two-thirds o f the average. As Professor G albraith has said, People are poverty-stricken when their income, even if adequate for survival, falls m arkedly behind that o f the com m unity.5 25 T h e studies o f income distribution that have been carried out since the w ar are inadequate for this purpose, because they rest chiefly on statistics produced b y the Board o f Inland Revenue. M an y economists treat these statistics with awe and believe they offer conclusive evidence not only o f greater redistribution o f income in post-war, as com pared with pre-war, years, but also o f a continuing equalization o f income and w ealth .26 In fact they have been o f dim inishing value as a general guide to relative standards o f living in Britain. T h e Board's figures refer to a haphazard m ixture o f individuals and tax units, and are not re worked in terms o f households or families. T h e y relate to a narrow definition o f income. Comparisons over time do not take account o f sharp changes in the dem ographic structure o f the population. As R ich ard Titm uss emphasizes in an im portant new work, the statistics are increasingly presenting a delusive picture o f the econom ic and social structure o f society5. 27 In w hat ways is the picture delusive? I can do no more than pick up a few threads in answer to this question. M an y employees receive 221

PETER TOWNSEND

benefits in kind in addition to their salaries or wages, which are largely excluded from official statistics. M ost big companies help some o f their employees with the purchase o f housing and own property which is let at a nom inal rent. M eals, entertainm ent, cars and travel which enhance the living standards o f some groups are partly allowed as business ex penses. Employers often contribute to private educational establishments. T h e real scale o f such fringe benefits in this country is unknown, though in A m erica they are estimated to be a quarter o f payroll costs.2 8 Sometimes such benefits are accepted in substitution for equivalent m onetary additions to taxable income. But figures o f taxable income are unrepresentative o f real income in other ways. T axab le income is sometimes deliberately reduced to spread income into retirement, to spread it to other members o f the fam ily or friends via irrevocable settlements, discretionary trusts, fam ily and educational trusts and gifts inter vivos in favour o f children, and to secure bonus shares or other tax free capital gains. T h e object is to avoid taxadon and enjoy at least part o f the income that would otherwise be forgone, though perhaps at a different time or in a different way. These activities are now sufficiently com m on and on a large enough scale to make hay o f recent statistics o f income distribution. T h e statistics are misleading as a guide to variations in standards o f living perhaps most o f all because o f the vague distinction m ade between capital and income. T h e R oyal Commission on Taxation did little to rem edy this, although a few o f its members argued in a m emorandum o f dissent that in fact no concept o f income can be really equitable that stops short o f the comprehensive definition which embraces all receipts which increase an individuals com m and over the use o f societys scarce resources in other words, his net accretion o f economic power be tween two points o f tim e \ 2 9 U ntaxed realized capital gains and capital receipts do not fall within the present definition o f taxable in com e.30 In 19 5 1 the Board o f Inland Revenue estimated annual capital appreciation at 150111. and in 1954 at between 20om. and 250111. T h e m inority o f the R oyal Commission on Taxation said that these estimates were m uch too low and that the real figure was between 6oom . and i,o o o m . Since the mid nineteen-fifties there has been a boom in capital appreciation. A ccording to The Economist, an invest ment o f 100 in a group o f 50 leading ordinary shares at the end o f *957 was worth 220 by the end o f 1959.31 For various reasons some taxpayers and their employers have taken advantage o f opportunities to translate taxable income into forms o f capital appreciation. A long account could be given o f the avoidance o f taxation through dividend stripping, bond washing, one-man com panies, shares for executives, overseas investment, hobby farm ing, p ay ment o f large lum p sums m asquerading as compensation for loss o f office and so on.
222

THE M EANING OF P O V E R T Y

A ll this suggests w hy we need to devise more sensitive indicators o f the living standards enjoyed b y different sections o f the population.32 Perhaps more use m ight be m ade o f the concepts o f average disposable incom e per h ead5 , 33 or average household incom e5 for different types o f household. A possible definition o f poverty m ight be developed on the basis o f measuring how m any households or families o f certain types have a total income o f less than, say, 50 per cent or 66 per cent o f the average. T o give an illustration from the M inistry o f L abou r budget data for 1953-4, 14 per cent o f the households in the sample consisting o f m an, wife and three children were spending less than 66 per cent o f the average for households o f that type.

INEQUITABLE

DISTRIBUTION AND

OF

HOUSING,

MEDICAL,

EDUCATIONAL

OTHER

RESOURCES

Fourth, more study m ight be given to the distribution o f non m onetary resources am ong individuals and families comprising the population. Some families with relatively large incomes m ight be obliged to live in slum houses or send their children to grossly over crowded schools. T h e y m ight therefore be poor5 only in certain lim ited respects. W e must rem em ber that to some extent the concept o f poverty5 is independent o f that o f income. T h e housing standards en jo yed b y different classes and types o f household m ight be carefully described. A ccou nt would be taken o f facts such as that in 1951, there were 2\ m illion homes w ithout piped water, 3 million w ithout a w.c. and 6 | m illion without a bath; and that in 1958 about 150,000 people in England and W ales, other than gypsies, were living in caravans, often because they could not get a house.34 A gain, the differential enjoym ent o f educational resources m ight be exam ined more fully. A ccou nt would be taken o f facts such as that over a fifth o f secondary classes in E ngland consist o f 36 or more pupils,35 while a large num ber o f classes in gram m ar and independent schools consist o f less than h a lf this num ber; and that the proportion o f able working-class children leaving school at 15 is m uch larger than that o f middle-class children. H a lf the N ational Service recruits to the A rm y in 1956-7 who were rated in the two highest ability groups had left school at 15 .36 These kind o f studies are also im portant in medicine and welfare. Staffing ratios, amenities and standards o f comfort in the better types o f general hospitals, nursing Homes and old peoples Homes m ight be com pared with those in chronic sick and m ental hospitals and former workhouse accom m odation retained as residential Homes b y local authorities. M an y other examples could be given. T o achieve point and precision such internal comparisons w ould have to be placed in context and 223

PETER TOWNSEND

related to the allocation o f resources as between different regions o f the country and as between public and private services. There is consider able evidence o f the co-existence o f poverty and plenty and o f stark contrasts between public squalor and private opulence.

INEQUITABLE

DISTRIBUTION

OF I N T E R N A T I O N A L

RESOURCES

Finally, the developm ent o f theories o f poverty and deprivation can not be based solely on studies in Britain. It has always been evident that what most people would call poverty in one society would be com para tive affluence in another. T o give one vivid exam ple, the standard o f living chosen by Row ntree in 1899 to define poverty in Y ork was cer tainly at least two or three times higher than the average standard enjoyed today by the populations o f such countries as India, Pakistan, Indonesia and Bolivia. T h e U nited Nations has done m uch to prom pt com para tive studies o f econom ic and social conditions. Included am ong the measures adopted are income per capita, energy consumption per capita, starchy staples as percentage o f total calories consumed, expectation o f life, infant m ortality rate and num ber o f inhabitants per physician. In one recent study, for exam ple, national income per capita in one group o f countries (including the U nited States, Australia and Sweden) was estimated to average 1,366 U .S. dollars per annum, while in another group (including India, Pakistan and Bolivia) it was estimated to average 72 U .S. dollars. T h e average num ber o f inhabitants per physi cian was 885 and 13,450 respectively.37 No one pretends that the measures so far used for com parative pur poses are anything but extrem ely crude. A vailable statistics vary in quality and are not often based on similar definitions. No satisfactory and practicable indicators o f actual nutritional status o f people have yet been developed . . .5 3 8 and no single comprehensive measure o f levels o f living [has been] found acceptable5. 39 Estimates m ade by U nited Nations experts o f subsistence5 needs in different under developed countries vary w idely and no proper basis for comparison exists.40 W hat is clear is that until more reliable indicators are devised for any single country, and I have argued that these must all be relative indicators, no reliable basis exists for international comparisons.

RELATIVE

DEPRIVATION

T h e vague concept o f subsistence5 is an inadequate and misleading criterion o f poverty, partly because it does not have the scientific ob jectiv ity sometimes claim ed for it, but also because it is essentially a static concept. It tends, with the passing o f time, to become devalued, like money. B y going on using it we have convinced ourselves that there 224

THE M E AN IN G OF P O V E R T Y

225

is almost no poverty in Britain. In fact there seems to be a substantial amount, and more, b y any reasonable criterion, than we care to adm it. O f course we are more prosperous than were our grandparents 50 years ago. T h a t is a claim which can be made b y each generation and one, no doubt, which our grandchildren will be m aking 50 years hence. But this is a different m atter from elim inating poverty. O ne can no more proclaim the abolition o f w ant than the abolition o f disease. Poverty is not an absolute state. It is relative deprivation. Society itself is continuously changing and thrusting new obligations on its members. T h ey, in turn, develop new needs. T h e y are rich or poor according to their share o f the resources that are available to all. This is true as m uch o f nutritional as m onetary or even educational resources. O u r general theory, then, should be that individuals and families whose resources, over time, fall seriously short o f the resources com m anded b y the average individual or fam ily in the com m unity in which they live, whether that com m unity is a local, national or international one, are in poverty.
NOTES 1 See, for example, the reference to the virtual elimination of primary poverty, by Mr. J. M . Kirk, the chair man of the National Food Survey Com mittee, in his preface to the Annual Report of the Committee, Domestic Food Consumption and Expenditure: 1958, Lon don, H .M .S .O ., i960. 2J. H. Sheldon, Report to the Birming ham Regional Hospital Board on its Geriatric Services, Birmingham Regional Hospital Board, 1961. 3 P. Marris, Widows and their Families , London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1958. 4 M . Turner, Forgotten M en , London, National Council of Social Service, i960. 5 See, for example, G. W. Brown and J. K . Wing, A Comparative Clinical and Social Survey of Three Mental Hos pitals, Sociology and Medicine , Studies within the framework o f the British National Health Service, The Sociological Review , Mono graph No. 5, 1962. 6 L. A . Shaw, Living on a StateMaintained Income I , Case Conference, March 1958; and M . Bowerbank, Living on a State-Maintained Income I I , Case Conference, April 1958. 7 H. G. Wilson, Problem Families and the Concept of Immaturity, Case Confer ence, October 1959. 8 B. S. Rowntree and G. R. Lavers, Poverty and the Welfare State: A Third Social Survey o f York dealing only with Economic Questions, London, Longmans, 1951. 9 Ministry of Labour and National Service, Report o f an Enquiry into Household Expenditurei n 1953-4 , London, H .M .S .O ., 10 The study was carried out in col laboration with Dr. Brian Abel-Smith, and with the full-time assistance of Mrs. Caroline Woodroffe. In preparing this paper I have also benefited from help and advice given by Mrs. Vivien Sober, Dr. Royston Lambert and Mr. Tony Lynes. Because of complexities in the way the data were arranged we found that our resources did not allow us to scrutin ise the figures of expenditure extracted from information relating to every house hold in the sample. We confined our selves to all those in the low and middle income groups, and selected a one-infour sample of these. This procedure introduces a further element of possible sampling error to the error already recog nized and discussed by the Ministry in its report of the results of the survey. But in view of the size of the national sample studied in 1953-4 this is not likely to have invalidated the broad results. 11 Report . . . into Household Expenditure, op. cit., p. 12. 12 Although at the time of writing we have still to analyse in full the informa tion obtained from the Ministry of Labour Family Expenditure Survey in i960, our counts show that 4 per cent of the population were living below the

1957-

226

PETER TOWNSEND
2 0 A . Marshall, Principles o f Economics, eighth edition, London, Macmillan, 1946, pp. 68-70. 21 A . Smith, The Wealth o f the Nations, Book 5, Chapter 2, Part I, 1776. 2 2 Ministry of Agriculture, Domestic Food Consumption and Expenditure: 1959 , Annual Report of the National Food Survey Committee, London, H .M .S .O ., 1961, p. 65. 23 See, for example, H. Tout, The Standard o f Living in Bristol, 1938. 2 4 For example, Political and Eco nomic Planning, Social Security and Unem ployment in Lancashire, No. 349, 1 Decem ber 1952. 25 J. K . Galbraith, The Affluent Society, London, Hamish Hamilton, 1958, p. 252. 2 6 See, for example, H . F. Lydall, The Long-Term Trend in the Size Dis tribution of Income, Journal o f the Royal Statistical Society, 1959, Vol. 122, Part 1; F. W. Paish, The Real Incidence of Personal Taxation, Lloyds Bank Review, January 1957; and D. Seers, The Levelling o f Incomes since 1938, 1951. 2 7 R. M . Titmuss, Income Distribution and Social Change: A Study in Criticism , London, Allen & Unwin (in press). 2 8 H. H. Macaulay, Fringe Benefits and their Federal Tax Treatment, 1959. 2 9Report o f the Royal Commission on Taxa tion, Cmd. 9474, London: H .M .S .O ., i 955 P- 8: . 3 0 The immunity from taxation which in Great Britain, unlike the United States, such speculative plunder con tinues to enjoy, has as much justification as a close season for sharks. R. H. Tawney, Equality, fourth edition, Lon don, Allen & Unwin, 1952, p. 243. 31 16 January i960. 32 In making the rather inadequate comments in these paragraphs, I am grateful to Richard Titmuss for allowing me to draw on his new study. 33 As adopted in T. Lynes, National Assistance and National Prosperity, O cca sional Papers on Social Administration, No. 5, Welwyn, The Codicote Press, I 9 6234 Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Caravans as Homes , Cmd. 872, London: H .M .S .O ., 1959. 35 See, for example, Ministry of Education, 1 5 -1 8 , Report o f the Central Advisory Council fo r Education (the Crowther Report), Vol. 1, London: H .M .S .O ., 1959, p. 434. 3 6 Ibid., p. 453.

basic national assistance rates plus rent, 5 per cent less than 20 per cent above those rates and a further 5 per cent less than 40 per cent above, giving a total of 14 per cent, equivalent to about 7J mil lion persons in the population. It is, how ever, difficult to compare in detail the 1953-4 and i960 results, because the former are based on total expenditure, while the latter are based on total in come, less tax and national insurance contributions. The 1953-4 income data were not reliable enough for detailed analysis. We used definitions of income and expenditure which were broadly comparable but it is well known that budget surveys tend to produce under estimates of household income and, to a lesser extent, over-estimates as well as under-estimates of certain kinds of house hold expenditure. In comparing the re sults for 1953-4 with those for i960 differences in size of sample and methods of inquiry must also be remembered. Certain data about the i960 survey is also given in a paper by Dorothy Cole Wedderburn on the evidence of poverty in Britain, which is to be published shortly in The Sociological Review. This paper, and another by Brian Abel-Smith, completed an interdependent series of three given at the 1962 conference of the British Sociological Association. 13 B. S. Rowntree, Poverty: A Study o f Town L ife , London, Macmillan, p. 86. 14 In the war, when Beveridge looked to Rowntree and others for guidance in deciding what rates should be paid in the new system of social security, the mini mum income thought to be sufficient for subsistence for a family of five included an amount for food which represented 72 per cent of the total (rent excluded). 15 The standards recommended by this committee have been used up to the present day by the National Food Survey Committee, which reports on annual food surveys carried out throughout Britain. 16 Report o f the Committee on Nutrition , London, B .M .A ., 1950, pp. 7 and 11. 17 Ibid., p. 13. 18 Ibid., pp. 13-14. 19 The National Research Council of the U .S.A . recommends intakes over three times larger than the British M edi cal Association. See Ministry of Agricul ture Annual Report of the National Food Survey, Domestic Food Consumption and Expenditure: 1956, London, H .M .S .O ., p. 20.

THE M E AN IN G OF P O V E R T Y
37 Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Report on the World Social Situa tion , New York, United Nations, 1961, Chapter III. 38 International Definition and Measure ment o f Levels o f Living , New York, United Nations, 1961, p. 7. 3 9 Ibid., p. 1. 4 0 For Chile in the early i95os, for example, it was estimated that an in

227

come equivalent to over 137 U .S. dollars per month was required by a family of man and wife and three children, while for Ecuador and Libya the estimated requirement was 20 U .S. dollars per month. Wages tended to be less than half these estimates. Department of Eco nomic and Social Affairs, Assistance to the Needy in Less-Developed Areas, New York, United Nations, 1956, pp. 19-21.

N O TE S Basis for Social Living: A critical bibliography embracing law, society, economics and politics, is produced by the International Institute of Social Sciences at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, and published by Herder at Freiburg. This second volume includes abstracts of articles published in this Journal between 1959 and 1961. The authors of articles abstracted can obtain copies of the work at a 25 per cent discount from the Institute.

London School of Economics and Political Science: The articles by Messrs. Sharpe, Townsend and Abrams were presented as papers at the 1962 Annual Conference of the British Sociological Association. Further material from this Conference will appear in the December Number of the Journal.