For decades, researchers have attempted to determine what factors contribute to poverty across the world so that they can further learn how to end it. While poverty has different impacts globally, researchers have been trying to understand the underlying reasons that it continues to persist and spread generation to generation. Since there is no universal reason as to why poverty occurs, it is undeniable that the perspective in which one examines poverty directly corresponds with the factors blamed. In this paper, I plan to explore the different factors that cause or contribute to the issue of poverty across the globe. These factors may be categorized into individualistic, structural, fatalistic, and compound attributions.
Individualistic Attributions
The first concept I will be covering is individualistic beliefs. These are the ideas that individuals who are impoverished are in that position due to their own fault. Results from a survey conducted by James W. Robinson, a sociology and criminal justice professor, showed that when asked about potential explanations as to why poverty occurs, 93% of respondents gave individualistic explanations. This verified that from those sampled, the dominant beliefs shared about poverty are that the poor cause their own destitution. Some examples given of these factors of individual poorness include a lack of effort, proper money management, and talent among poor people, as well as having poor morals. These examples place the blame onto the individual’s choices rather than fate and places no blame unto society.
When discussing poverty beliefs, it’s necessary to differentiate between the two kinds of poverty: deserving and undeserving. The difference between these concepts depends upon the perspective of the observer. Those who believe poverty is an individualistic problem believe that the poor are deserving of poverty. They are poor because of the choices they’ve made and if they aren’t seeking out opportunities to improve their status in life, they deserve to be impoverished. Robinson (2009) points out that in the United States, “nobody is poor by circumstance for long” because of the many opportunities available and “if you remain poor, you are poor by choice.” Because the United States, as an example, places so much blame on the individual, policies that attempt to compensate for structural factors are often times more difficult to implement. Under this view, it is easy to claim poor are undeserving of welfare protection because of ‘laziness’; globally, however, there are not as many opportunities available as in the United States so one may not be able to make that same assumption elsewhere.
Another important thing to note about individualistic attributions is the concept of social mobility. Social mobility is any change in social status due to one’s social location within society. While social mobility doesn’t necessarily have a direct effect on ones poverty status, it impacts ones attribution beliefs due to whether or not they experience improvements. Gugushvili (2016) explains that those who do move up in socio-economic status through social mobility are more likely to blame the individual for their status rather than on an injustice from society. While many people blame poverty on the choices of the individual, more often than not poverty has causes rooted in society as subsequently discussed.
Structural Attributions
Unlike individualistic beliefs, structural attributions for poverty are social and economic factors that are completely out of the control of the poor. The important thing to note with this concept is that the blame is placed on the society and its socio-economic forces. While the survey Robinson conducted showed most people responding more individualistically, structural attributions are the most frequently mentioned reasonings for poverty. Van Oorschot & Halman (2000) list “prejudice and discrimination against poor people, failure of private industry to provide enough jobs, low wages in some business and industries, failure of society to provide good schools and education, and the poor [being] taken advantage of by the rich” as potential societal factors; though there are many possibilities not listed. These examples are, however, what would be considered an undeserving factor. Regardless of the ability and willingness of individuals to make good choices, they are still in poverty due to the circumstances surrounding them.
The policies a nation has in place regarding poverty depend on the perception the population has on the concept of poverty. According to a quote by Georg Simmel in Lepianka, Van Oorschot, and Gelissen’s (2009) article, the “generosity of welfare and poor relief programs directly depend on the degree to which the poor are seen by the public as being themselves responsible for their deplorable situation.” This means that if the general population holds individualistic views, the policies that are developed regarding poverty are going to be much less generous; this is a problem if those poor individuals want to create a better situation for themselves because now they have more selective barriers in their way. Britain and the United States, for example, create policies based on this view that individual morals and behavior are the main cause of poverty. Under these circumstances with these kinds of policies in place, impoverished citizens suffer. In other places of the world, however, more universal and generous anti-poverty policies are created under the structural belief that poverty is caused externally to the individual.
Expanding upon the role government and society play in causing poverty, social action groups may also contribute to poverty. Poverty is not just an unavoidable concept but can also be considered the outcome of processed induced by social action. Groups who pursue a common goal—like companies, unions, political parties, and interest groups—have tendencies to exclude the weakest in society, whether intentional or not. Sumner (2016) mentions Professor Harriss White and her argument that “poverty comes from an unequal distribution of power, wealth, and opportunity” to further explain how social structures and relationships can lead to poverty and its reproduction. Because there is a hierarchy within the social structure, the location of the poor individuals determines their choices and consequences; their choices are limited and they hold the social structure accountable.
The income and resources of a country are another structural factor that may contribute to poverty. Sumner (2016) discusses how many of the countries that were considered Low Income have crossed the line into Middle Income; though the average incomes did not increase by much. If the average income increases, it is implied that there are more domestic taxable resources available; this has implications on the future of aid from other (higher income) countries which can also affect or cause poverty. Another concept that can be considered a resource within a country is qualified labor. According to Faini (2007), the phenomenon known as “brain drain” is detrimental to countries. Brain drain is the emigration of the highly skilled and educated individuals for economic prospects. This can lead to poverty in their home country because if all the smartest people are leaving, the country will suffer a lack of intellectuals and will more than likely have to bear the costs of their education. This is a structural problem because now those undeserving individuals suffer another societal disadvantage.
The last structural factor I’m going to explain is the effect demographic change has on poverty. Any sort of population change would have an impact on the poverty rates, but even in the poorest countries, rapid population growth is set to continue. This is a conflicting issue because some people believe having too many children just happens to poor people while others believe that people can plan the size of their family, but poor people are unwilling to do so. From a structural perspective, poor people having too many children just happens. An important question I came across in Sinding’s (2009) article is whether poverty reinforces high fertility or if high fertility leads to poverty. Included in this article was the results of a survey conducted by Canning & Schofield in 2007. It showed over a three year period that on average, one birth reduced the likelihood of mothers participating in the work force by twenty percent. While this isn’t the largest percentage, it proves that a significant amount of families are lead into poverty due to the addition of children. Sinding (2009) also explains that
empirical studies increasingly support the idea that countries which have incorporated population policies and family planning programmes in their overall economic development strategies have achieved high and sustained rates of economic growth and that they have also managed significant reductions in poverty.
This isn’t to say that countries with population policies aren’t also continuing to grow rapidly; however, individual families would experience less poverty because they aren’t having to pay for as many individuals.
Fatalistic Attributions
Fatalistic attributions aren’t as common as individualistic or structural beliefs; however, there is still fatalistic type causes for poverty. A fatalistic attribution places the blame of poverty status on individual fate. This incorporates factors that are out of the individuals control but not the direct fault of society. Bad luck, lack of ability, and illnesses are the most accurate factors under this attribution, though it includes anything that one could consider fate.
There are a decent amount of examples of factors that are out of the individual/societal control. Race and ethnicity is one because one is born into specific racial classifications and cannot choose for themselves. In many areas of the world, racism and discrimination is prevalent. In the United States, for example, black people face many more social injustices and inequalities due to the color of their skin; even though one quite literally cannot choose their race (Hunt 1996). Race can also be a structural cause of poverty, though, so it is not the best example.
The best examples to offer come from Honsch (2006). He discusses the spread of the HIV/AIDs pandemic and why it affected developing countries primarily. The residents of lower income countries don’t have an access to the information to warn them nor the funding to provide protection from vaccinations. It’s not only bad luck to get infected with a disease but the illness itself could be considered the individual’s fate. The other example Honsch (2006) gives that is a good example of fatalistic attributions is the fate of natural factors. Whether it’s the geographic location of a country, the amount of natural resources available, or the amount of natural disasters that occur; the quality of life one has is dependent upon the natural fate of their country’s location. If individuals live in an area with poor climate and land, they won’t be able to flourish monetarily, no matter how hard they try.
Compound Attributions
Compound attributions weren’t discussed in length by any of the articles listed; nevertheless, there are many people who hold views that fall under this category. Compound attributions of poverty rely on the acceptance that poverty is just a part of where the modern world is heading; a concept of social fate causing poverty. There can be any variety of poverty explanations, yet the examples Lepianka, Van Oorschot, and Gelissen (2009) give are ones social background, family history, possible self-infliction, and long term unemployment. Typically, people who believe compound attributions are what cause poverty don’t blame laziness, but may blame any other factor.
Summary of Findings
Poverty is definitely more prominent in some areas of the world than others; yet it is prevalent worldwide. After analyzing potential causes for poverty existing and persisting, it is clear to me that there will never be one solid reason. Individuals will place the blame for poverty onto whichever attribution they truly believe causes poorness. Some wouldn’t even be able to choose one type they agree with most and will then exhibit compounded beliefs. Regardless of how much research one does in attempting to determine the major causes of poverty, the reasons are forever changing and will always be perceived differently from person to person. It is still important, though, to examine these potential causes and perspectives to get as complete an understanding of poverty as possible.