Gladwin, Dr.

Thomas, author
Poverty U.S.A. Little, Brown and Company, 1967
182 pages

Even until now, an old book still provides deep insight into a problem as old as mankind.
“To search for the old is to understand the new.”- Gitchin Funakoshi

The author, anthropologist Dr. Thomas Gladwin expounds on the issue of poverty in the
United States in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s

He presented poverty in a universal perspective regardless of time, country, race, religion

or form of government. Poverty indeed is a universal problem and is the same
everywhere. The human cost in senseless suffering and misery caused by poverty is
largely hidden in today’s modern world of huge multimedia information and sensory
overload, and with this the confounding of social issues and problems that need to be
addressed. But in this book, however, the problem of poverty is clearly discussed, citing
the reasons why the most widely applied and accepted strategies in addressing it are
ineffective.

He first clarifies the causes and consequences of poverty. Then, he identifies other issues
not related to poverty which confuses and made ineffective efforts at eradicating poverty.
The most important of these issues are Civil Rights and the Vietnam War. Civil rights was
a Black issue, the Vietnam War was an ideological issue. Next, he makes a comparison of
the New Deal under the Roosevelt Administration and that of “The War on Poverty”
under the Lyndon Administration and the significant differences of the poor during these
two eras. Lastly and most importantly, he describes how it is to be really poor, and how
the poor perceive the world around them. In this review I start with his description of
how it is to be poor. This is to enable us to appreciate his comparison of the two anti-
poverty programs.
The cycle of poverty can be stated simply as the condition of low or no income resulting
in little money or no saving, which results in low or no investments which results in little
or no productivity which results in low or no income. Poverty is often described as a
vicious cycle. Perhaps we should speak of a whole succession of cycles, almost all of
them vicious. Being poor means living in a poor neighborhood, which means living with
and associating with the uneducated, the criminals, the prostitutes, the destitute and the
despairing, acquiring and learning their habits and lifestyle (i.e. alcoholism, gambling,
drugs etc.) which further make one poor. Being poor means eating poor food and living in
unsanitary conditions, which means having poor health, which means missing a lot of
work or school, or perhaps being handicapped or not strong enough to handle the heavy
manual work which is often the only kind available, and thus being unemployed most of
the time, and so being poor. Being poor means being uneducated or going to a public
school, which means having no education or an inadequate education and therefore a
low-paying job or no job at all, making one poor. To be poor is to realize that most of the
other people in the school, community or work place are more successful and are able to
do things which the poor people do not even dream about, which means that the poor
sees himself as someone despised and a failure, which means he has no confidence and
gives up easily or does not even try, and thus he stays poor forever. All of these begin and
end with being poor. There are many more cycles like these, each causing more misery
than the last. Because these sequences of cause and effect seem to repeat themselves
endlessly generation after generation the life of poverty is sometimes described as a
culture, or more precisely a subculture, with an implication of a self contained and self-
perpetuating cultural dynamic.
Being poor in today’s modern society consist in the lack of sufficient money to function
effectively in the economic system through which everyone is forced to seek the
necessities of life. Having at any one time at most only a small amount of money, and
never being sure that in the immediate future there will be enough money available to
cover even minimum needs, the poor person is forced to spend what ever he has on the
most urgent demands that arise each day, and thus to operate constantly on a succession
of small deals. Instead of a weekly trip to the grocery or public market, food must be
bought by walking to the nearest neighborhood store and buying enough for the next
meal or two. The size and adequacy of the purchase, and therefore of the meal to follow
depends on how much money can be scraped on that particular day. To do other wise
however calls for a reserve supply of money and reliable refrigeration. One would say
that the poor must budget. It has been said that budgeting is the best economic tool for
any household to enable it to function adequately in any economic society. However, it is
very difficult to budget when one is operating on a very small and uncertain income, and
it is near impossible (if indeed it were possible) to budget when there is nothing to
budget. To have income, one must have a job and a job is something that the poor people
generally do not have.

The description above is just a small picture of how it is to be poor. The human, social
and psychological cost are much more difficult to portray, but the two essays that follow,
one written during the Great Depression and the other in the 1960’s say it all. It also
reflects the difference in economic circumstances and characteristics of the poor of the
two eras.
I’d get up at five in the morning and head for the waterfront. Outside the Spreckles
Sugar Refinery, outside the gates, there would be a thousand men. You know damn well
there’s only three or four jobs. The guy would come out with two little Pinkerton cops. “ I
need two guys for the bull gang. Two guys to go into the hole” a thousand men would
fight like a pack of Alaskan dogs to get through. Only four of us would get through.1

I called the roofing outfits and they didn’t need me because they already had men that
had been working for them five or six years. There weren’t that many openings. You had
to have a college education for most of them. And I was looking for anything, from car
wash to anything else.
So what do you do all day? You go home and you sit. And you begin to get frustrated
sitting at home. Everybody in the household gets starts getting on edge. They start
arguing with each other over stupid things ‘cause they’re all cramped in that space all
the time. The whole family kind of got crushed by it2.

1
Studs Trekel, Hard Times: An oral History of the Great Depression in America (Pantheon, New York
1970)
2
Harry Maurer, Not Working: An Oral History of the Unemployed (Holt, New York, 1979)
The New Deal under US President Franklin Roosevelt’s administration in the 1930’s is
still widely seen today as one of the most successful program in the eradication of
poverty. It brought back an entire nation from economic collapse through what is now
widely known as The Great Depression, after the collapse of the US stock markets and
with it the bankruptcy of corporations and fifteen million people jobless. Three broad
lines of strategy can be discerned in the New Deal, each focused on creating a paradigm
shift on three important values in the order of: private property and the right to
accumulation, equality of opportunity, and the dignity and worth of a person simply
because he is a human being.
Faced by the sheer numbers of people in distress the New Deal had as its essential
achievement the downgrading of the primacy of private property to that of equality of
opportunity. Businessmen until this time had the mentality that it is not their
responsibility to risk a loss in order to give jobs to other people. The socially responsible
corporation, which responds to the needs of community and society as we know today,
did not yet exist. They were in effect appealing to- or taking for granted- the primacy of
the right to private property. Through a variety of mechanisms under the New Deal it
became clearly established in law and in custom that equality of opportunity was a right
more to be respected than private property. The third value, that of the dignity and worth
of a person did not play a central role in the New Deal but is significant because it defines
the tasks which the New Deal left undone: The New Deal was nondiscriminatory with
regards to sex, race or religion; but then nondiscrimination is only a special case of
equalizing opportunities to compete for goals (i.e. jobs and economic rewards). The third
value emphasized equality of opportunity for those who strive and even for those who
don’t. The New Deal helped the people who strived, both winners and the losers. But it
virtually ignored the by-standers. This by-standers two and a half generations later would
become the poor of the 60’s and 70’s.
What are these three strategies?
1. Changing social attitudes towards the poor
2. Enhancing the capabilities of the poor
3. Changing political and economic structures to ensure that the effects of these
programs would endure.

In changing the social attitudes towards the poor, the literature of the era was very
influential in bringing about a positive effect, notably the works of novelist Steinbeck,3
Anthropologist like Oscar Lewis and sociologist like Michael Harrington and with many
others to follow drew a new and more sympathetic portrait of the chronically poor. This
new picture showed people caught in a vicious trap of circumstance, a way of life in
which one learned not to care and often discovered that sacrifice and struggle just made
things worse. Literature around this conception was a tender mixture of brutality and
compassion. It showed people struggling pathetically against hopeless odds, but yet
hoping, usually in vain, that where they were crushed their children would somehow be
spared. (Now that sounds so very Filipino!) The positive effect it brought about was
reducing discrimination against people simply because they are poor.
An important insight to be mentioned here is that a big factor in the success of the New
Deal was the characteristics of the poor during this era: They can be called the New Poor.
They were not poor in the first place. It was the collapse of the Stock Market leading to
the Great Depression that rendered them jobless and the consequence was that they
became poor. Clearly, this showed that nothing was wrong with the poor people who
were highly skilled, educated, ambitious, socially competent, willing to delay
gratification, willing to work hard and to grab any opportunity, in short, Middle Class in
orientation. It showed that something was wrong with the economic system, for
everybody was poor. The person willing to work hard was just as helpless as any loafer in
giving a decent life to his family. To solve the problem, you have to tinker with the
system and not the poor people.
In contrast, the economic system in the 1960’s and 1970’s was working, despite the
Vietnam War and other international crises. Its longest economic boom then characterized
the United States, and the majority of the people were out of poverty. Why then must
Government tinker with a system were the majority are thriving and succeeding? Why
must government jeopardize the many for the sake of the few?
3
Steinbeck’s notable works include: The Grapes of Wrath, Of Mice and Men, East of
Eden, The Winter of Our Discontent
What are the characteristics of the poor in this era? Unlike the poor of the 1930’s who
were “New Poor”, highly competent and Middle Class in orientation, the people here
were Old Poor, poor as far as they can remember and therefore have been in the
compounding vicious cycle described earlier. They are Poor in orientation, unskilled,
uneducated and socially incompetent.
The term Poor in Orientation means that the poor have lifestyles, habits and values which
enable them to survive in unfavorable settings but which when taken into more favorable
circumstances jeopardize what little progress they may have made, or shut out
opportunities. For example, aggressive and violent behavior will get you by in the slums,
but will get you shunned in other neighborhoods. Stealing may have fed the family well
for a few days, but a police record means no employer will ever hire one with a police
record. The lifestyle of the poor is also strongly characterized by their inability to defer
gratification. “Why save when you can buy now?” And “If you can’t buy then borrow!”
is a common line of their thinking. But when one comes to think of it, why delay
gratification after so much deprivation?
The term socially incompetent means a person’s inability to integrate himself into and
function in society. For example, a person who has been jobless for years might find it
difficult to adjust to a new work environment if given a job. His inability to adjust to new
social relationships brought about by the job, like having co-workers who demand
conformity or a boss who now orders him around to do things when he never had
anybody before telling him how or what to do leads to either a confrontation (a fight at
work with co-workers or the boss) or withdrawal (absenteeism or tardiness) which causes
him to loose his job.

Their being uneducated, unskilled and incompetent focus attention to these by the fact
that these characteristics in contrast to the other social classes, notably the middle class.
In the 1930’s poor and middle class, the loafer and the competent were just as helpless.
But in the 1960’s and 1970’s the competent were getting ahead. The poor in this era
therefore were more subject to apathy and discrimination than the earlier era.. The poor
of the 1930’s was seen as victims of circumstances; those of the 1960’s that of their own
making.
The effects of the second strategy, that of enhancing the capabilities of the poor was less
noticeable in the earlier era. As have been mentioned earlier, the majority of the poor here
were already educated, skilled and competent. What was needed was the opening of
opportunities in which their education and skills could be put to use. Nevertheless, the
New Deal proceeded to enhance the capabilities of the poor through a variety of
programs. This surely would have resulted further in more qualified people being
unemployed have not the Second World War intervened, which would be a blessing in
disguise in that national mobilization absorbed all people, as all men were drafted to the
armed forces and the women in the production line.

In the latter 1960’s this strategy would be of greater importance, for as we have noted
already, the poor in these era were unemployed despite so much opportunity because they
were uneducated and unskilled. Tactics involved here were Education/skills development
training, livelihood and job opportunities generation.

Education/skills development training has the longest investment and pay-off. It follows
therefore that this solution is effective in the long run but never when the people are
starving to death. Can you teach a drowning man to swim? No. You bail him out of the
water. For this solution to be effective a degree of stability is necessary in the life of the
poor being helped. Perhaps a home where there is no threat of ejection, money for
schooling and money to spend in the process of schooling would generally suffice if the
person comes from a poor but stable family. By stable is meant that they are bound to
reside in a particular area long enough to finish schooling, and that the family is not
wracked by internal strife. The problem with this tactic is that often there are no jobs
available later on. The poor people in this category are bound to be the longest in need of
help simply because they have no education or skills yet for them to qualify for work.

Livelihood and jobs generation would apply to those who already have particular skills.
The poor in this category usually need only technical and financial assistance to stand on
their own, providing of course that debilitating discrimination is non-existent or markedly
reduced. Often, because of discrimination, job opportunities offered are so distasteful and
low paying that they immediately lost interest in any work. Discrimination means
selective disqualification for work due to class status. Based on my work experiences in
Metro Manila, found this kind of discrimination very prevalent even in our own country,
as evidenced by the recruitment processes of many corporations that gave preferential
jobs to applicants from schools of the wealthy like Ateneo and La Salle. Successful
applicants from other educational institutions were given distasteful jobs like delivery,
although they possessed the same qualifications.

The apathy of the poor in the 1960’s was also a serious impediment to their own progress,
they have no “Dream”. In the earlier era the large pool of untrained manpower pursued a
dream. In the latter era the untrained and uncommitted manpower behaved more like
economic refugees. One must remember that this era marked the height of the hedonistic
movement in America, better known as the “Hippie” movement characterized by
irresponsibility, heavy drug and alcohol abuse, rock and roll and the pursuit of pleasure
regardless of consequences.
But then for those who had the dream, they become impediments to the other poor, for as
they move up the social ladder they then begin to discriminate their former fellows,
making it doubly difficult for those still below to survive. Notably, the fear of
competition for scarce opportunities from their fellows is the hidden impetus for this
behavior.

Lastly, changing political and economic structures to ensure that the effects of these
programs would endure could be stated as the need for structural change. This consisted
in altering, principally through legislation, the distribution of money and income, and
inevitably this means the allocation of power, both directly and indirectly. The creation of
the National Labor Relations Board in the United States (and in our own country the
equivalent would be the Department of Labor) is an example. It had the effect of
redressing overnight a balance of power in labor management relations that in the past
have been largely in favor of management. The passing of more Labor laws clearly
ensured that what has been gained in the fight against poverty, no matter how small in
comparison to the problems ahead, will not be lost.

The weakness of the book lies simply in its age. Printed in 1967, it is already out of print.
This does not mean however that the lessons learned from the book are outdated, for it
presents principles. One also cannot fail to notice Gladwin’s bias that unemployment is
the root cause of poverty, and here he fails to touch on a subject that other economists,
notably Nobel prize winner Paul Samuelson have ponited out: inflation. For even if the
poor are eventually employed, the purchasing power of their wages or salaries are rapidly
eaten up, disabling them from rising above poverty and reducing many Middle Class
families to poverty level creating the “employed poor”. A guaranteed income is not
enough. It must also increase regularly to redress inflation effectively. The strength of the
book lies in the fact that it has presented a clearer perspective of the plight of the modern
poor thereby clarifying which particular strategies in combating poverty are more
applicable and more effective in different circumstances. I recommend this book to be
read by employers, NGO’s who concern themselves with the poor, government officials
and economists, historians, anthropologists, and most important, the educated poor.

Now why did I like this book? You guessed right. I’m poor and working my way out of
poverty.

MELVIN B. ALAMAG
Commerce Faculty DWCB
 DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE
MIDTERMS

By: Mr. Melvin B. Alamag

Submitted to Mrs. Victoria Valeros

1. From the Medium Term Philippine Development Plan under the present dispensation,
what are the different contributions of the agency where you belong to the attainment
of its goals and why?

From the agency where I belong (DWCB) I doubt if even top management is aware nor
has heard of the Medium Term Philippine Development Plan. If it has made any
contributions to the attainment of the MTPDP it would be unintentional and incidental: a
by-product in the DWCB’s pursuit of its own institutional development. Government
policy implementation (which includes this Plan) is in practice delegated to the various
government agencies specializing in its own field. Hence, I am most certain that CHED
and Dep. Ed policies and standards which have been recently formulated in order to
attain MTPDP goals with regards to education and which are mandatory in nature are
already complied with by the DWCB. Such compliance is its contribution.

2. The Solar 1 tanker sunk off Guimaras Island causing an oil spill if you were the
Governor what would be the immediate short-term solution to this kind of situation
since the majority of the peoples livelihood has been affected.

The immediate short-term action I would take if I were governor of Guimaras is to

declare a state of calamity (which the Governor has already done). This declaration
automatically authorizes the diversion of appropriated funds to the immediate vicinity for
emergency relief aid. Further more, I would convene the Provincial Board and revise the
provincial appropriated budget so as to cancel projects which have been rendered
unimplementable by the oil spill (like for example, tourism development), revise
priorities (which projects can we postpone?) and use this funds for clean-up: in the
process employing those people immediately affected and pay them with wages. This
most certainly would alleviate their plight and secondly, they would be the most
motivated, being paid to clean up and rebuild their community, which eventually in the
long run would restore their livelihood. Though easier said than done, a thorough
deliberation can establish the guidelines in the implementation by the provincial
government in the identification, determination and limitations of this short-term
solution.

3. From the different development perspectives, how would you try to solve the vicious
cycle of poverty to that of a virtuous circle of development?

In answer to this question I have decided to provide you with the unedited version of
my book review “Poverty: USA”, a discourse by the anthropologist Dr. Thomas Gladwin
whose ideas became a cornerstone in US policy making in the fight against poverty
within the USA.
It is great material in teaching Development Perspectives.