Any discussion of poverty and its related discourses must begin with a definition. One positive of taking an interdisciplinary approach to the analysis of poverty is the increase in the pool of potential resources that we can draw upon in defining the term. We must define poverty within the geographical boundaries of the UK and situate our definition within the twenty-first century. Fundamentally, we must question how to measure poverty. The very foundation of this book relies on comparing measurements of poverty and/or deprivation using census data (and its derivatives) with discursive depictions of poverty, using the tools of Geographical Text Analysis (GTA).
Lansley and Mack (2015: 3) argue that â[d]efinitions of poverty matterâ because they act as a determinant of âwhether the incomes and living conditions of the poorest in society are acceptable or notâ. This chapter discusses some of the many different ways of defining and measuring poverty, both quantitative and qualitative. Section 1.1 considers definitions of poverty and notes that, as there is no undisputed way to measure poverty, any definition (used implicitly and explicitly) likely performs an ideological function. Section 1.2 focuses on attempts to measure poverty both quantitatively and socioculturally, using measures such as census statistics and Carstairs scores. Section 1.3 considers the wider social context within which this research sits, and summarises some of the major trends in discourses of poverty identified in existing research.
1.1 Key Components of Poverty
The Oxford English Dictionaryâs definition of poverty is âDestitution: The condition of having little or no wealth or few material possessionsâ (OED 2017). Far from being absolute, references to âlittle or no wealthâ and âfewâ possessions leaves the understanding of poverty somewhat open to interpretation. Following Chambers (2006: 3) it is important to note that âWhat poverty is taken to mean depends on who asks the question, how it is understood, and who respondsâ. Perhaps even more importantly Chambers (2006: 3) notes that âOur common meanings have all been constructed by us, non-poor people. They reflect our power to make definitions according to our perceptionsâ. It is therefore important to survey a range of definitions and be aware how the selection of definition(s) will act as a lens through which research is designed and carried out. Furthermore, research must be informed by an awareness of the social structure that facilitate non-poor peopleâs definitions of poverty and which restrict the voices of those in poverty.
In their review of definitions of poverty in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, Misturelli and Heffernan (2008: 670) note that there are seven key aspects of poverty: material, physical, economic, political, social, institutional, and psychological. Whilst they present an overview of developments in definitions of poverty from the 1970s onwards, they note that geographical influences began to appear in the 1980s, with distinctions being made between âurbanâ and ârural povertyâ (2008: 674). In the early 2000s, âconcepts of poverty appeared to be moving from defining poverty to defining the poor themselves [âŠ] the focus was on grouping the poor into discrete categories often linked to the poverty lineâ (2008: 679). Yet, they argue that definitions of poverty that employ an in/out dichotomy have been rejected as being too simplistic; the life experiences of people close to either side of a âpoverty lineâ or threshold economic figure are not automatically dissimilar and, relatedly, those on either side of the line cannot be seen as two homogenous wholes. This is similar to Leeâs (1999: 174) argument that poverty thresholds are somewhat arbitrary and are not absolute measures; there will be some people below the poverty line not âexperiencing povertyâ and presumably the opposite holds true for those above the line. Yet, despite some inter-decade differences, including fluctuations in the relative weightings of the different elements of poverty, the fact that the seven elements Misturelli and Heffernan identified repeat across their dataset shows that the core of what constitutes poverty appears fairly stable.
Despite this apparent stability, Gordon (2006: 29) argues that âthere is still no official definition of poverty in the UKâ. There is an EU definition (established in 1984) which includes âpersons, families and groups of persons whose resources (material, cultural and social) are so limited as to exclude them from the minimum acceptable way of life in the Member State in which they liveâ (2006: 30). By this definition, poverty is therefore conceptualised as a relative phenomenon, not an absolute state. Gordon (2006: 32) makes a distinction between the definition of poverty and the social realisation(s) of poverty when he suggests that âPoverty is the lack of resources and deprivation is the consequence of povertyâ and suggests that to be poor in Britain, in âscientific termsâ, people must have âboth a low income and a low standard of livingâ (2006: 39). Lansley and Mack (2015: 3) note that the Child Poverty Act (2010) uses 60% of median household income as a threshold for measuring poverty, and thus it represents a âstatutory recognition that poverty is relativeâ.1
There is also a recognised definition of absolute poverty (see Gordon 2006: 31), endorsed by the United Nations, that references âa condition characterised by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education, and informationâ (UN 1995: 57). However, one can be in poverty without being in absolute poverty and, as such, some measures of poverty noted by the UN will be largely irrelevant in countries with systematic clean water supplies, public sanitation facilities, nationalised health provision, and free education. Lansley and Mack (2015: 3), however, argue that foregrounding the extremes of poverty and emphasising âhunger and homelessnessâ can be used by powerful institutions âas a way of underplaying the extent of povertyâ. The fact that the UNâs definition of absolute poverty is not universally applicable emphasises that the geography of poverty is significant; what is considered poverty in one socially-defined location (such as within a countryâs borders) may not be considered poverty in other locations.
To this end, Gordon (2006: 39) argues that âlow income and low standard of living can only be accurately measured relative to the normsâ of individual societies, what he terms objective poverty. He proposes that deprivation measures relating to âpersonal, physical and mental conditions, local and environmental facilities, social activities and customs, are more suitable for measuring poverty and deprivation than economic measures of consumption expenditure (Gordon 2006: 39). In measuring objective poverty, Gordon (2006: 40) notes that the variables of income and âstandard of living are correlatedâ and acknowledges that there âwill always be some ambiguities near the margins about whether a person should be defined as âpoorâ or notâ. He suggests, therefore, that âit is better to conceive the poverty threshold as a band of low income and standard of living rather than as a hard fixed lineâ (2006: 40).
Despite different interpretations of poverty, its manifestations as relative or absolute, the acceptance/rejection of an in/out dichotomy, and its geographical location, what all the definitions above have in common is an underlying sense that poverty is something which can be observed and scientifically measured. Language about poverty lines, margins, thresholds, standards, minimums, income levels, etc. and yes/no measures such as access to clean water and sanitation, treat poverty as something quantifiable and concrete. The possibility that poverty is unmeasurable is not considered; yet we cannot intrinsically measure poverty as it is an abstract, socially-determined concept. In order to address this, the following section discusses what is actually measured when determining the boundaries of poverty.
1.2 Poverty by Proxy
Measurements of poverty and deprivation in human geography, and specifically in existing research employing GIS (see Chapter 3), tend to be based on quantitative data,2 including Carstairs scores (Morris and Carstairs 1991), the Index of Local Conditions (Lee 1999),3 the Townsend Index (Townsend et al. 1988), and Indices of Multiple Deprivation (Noble et al. 2006). All of these indices are calculated using combinations of variables from census data or other statistical indicators, such as unemployment, overcrowded housing, or lack of amenities (see Morgan and Baker 2006; Morris and Carstairs 1991). However, none of these indices actually measure poverty, rather poverty is calculated using quantifiable proxies that are presumed to be symptomatic of poverty. Morgan and Baker (2006: 28) note that deprivation measures, such as Carstairs scores have been âconstructed to act as a proxy for data on personal/household income or wealth which have not routinely been collected in the UK censusâ.
The data used to calculate Carstairs scoresâunemployment, overcrowded housing, lack of car ownership, and low social classâis problematic. In early calculations of Carstairs scores (at least) the unemployment statistics were based on male employment figures only. Wider social factors were also ignored. For example, the ownership of a car does not take into account the fact that cars vary greatly in both their monetary value and level of ownership (people may have company cars, lease their cars, purchase them with finance, own their vehicles outright, etc.) and so the assumption that two households who each have cars will be in some way statistically similar is questionable. Additionally, whilst overcrowding may appear more clear cut, as it measures the ratio of people to room...