One of the most discussed and disturbing issues of all the times is poverty. The humanity has always been curious where it takes the beginning and what leads to the miserable condition that poverty implies. However there are different criteria by which the state of poverty is defined. It is believed that the more the richer the person is the more he wants to have, thus what is a real treasure for one person, can be nothing for another.

Poverty can be defined by the condition of being without adequate resources. This may mean being deprived of different resources varying from food and money to time. The term poverty can be further broken down into two different terms, absolute and relative. Absolute poverty is a standard of measurement that remains the same irrespective of social and geographical situation, and is therefore an absolute minimum standard of living for all people that must be met; if it is not, it can be said that they are in poverty. However there is also another definition of poverty that can be used, relative poverty. This is based on the idea that a person has less in comparison with other people.

In the early 1800s, the poor were seen as comprising of two different groups; deserving and undeserving poor. Deserving poor were the very old, sick or severely disabled, whilst the undeserving poor were those capable of working, but chose not to. At the time there appeared to be a main consensus that the undeserving poor were responsible for whether or not they were in poverty. They could easily escape poverty by not being lazy and working. A way to discourage this so-called ‘idleness’ was the result of the passing of the Poor Law Amendment Act in 1834. Under which, only the elderly and the sick were allowed to claim ‘outdoor’ relief (i.e. be supported in their own homes). All other people whom claimed relief were subjected to ‘the workhouse test’. The concept behind the workhouse test was to discourage those who could really work from claiming relief. Up until this point, the state were seen to be ‘too generous’ and people had subsequently realised that ‘working for a living’ provided a less comfortable lifestyle than those of whom claimed relief. The Poor Law Amendment Act in 1834 attempted to rectify this problem by using the idea of ‘less eligibility’. The centre idea behind this was to make living conditions in the workhouses less than those experienced by the lowest paid employment. This would result in driving the able bodied poor back to work. However concept assumed that people were idle and did not want to work, which was not the case in many instances. In addition, the fact that work may not be available to people was ignored.

During the Victorian period, one response to poverty that was adopted by people was the concept of ‘self-help’. ‘The aim of all men ought to be to make themselves independent, whereas the tendency of the Poor Law was to make men dependent’. Friendly societies and various contributory schemes offered help to the working classes; money could be available if they ever fell ill or became unemployed. This idea of helping one self implied that poverty could be avoided by undergoing such pre-emptory measures, and thus it is the responsibility of an individual to avoid poverty.

Charles Booth was a businessman who felt that different groups grossly exaggerated the extent of poverty, including the Marxist Social Democratic Federation. A survey undertaken by this group in working class areas of London showed that 25% of the working population lived in poverty. Booth thought that this was an exaggeration and set about proving it by undertaking a study of ‘Life and Labour of the People in London’. However, in fact his results revealed that the poverty problem was much more serious than first thought and that approximately 30% of Londoners were living below a poverty line. Booth drew this poverty line at an income of 21s a week for a moderate family noting that it would vary with different circumstances. A main point of Booth’s work was how he managed to classify the population. He categorised people into eight categories; importantly, the majority of people that Booth located in the first four categories lived a precarious life through no fault of their own. He also identified that low wages the uncertain nature of seasonal work as being the major causes of poverty, and not individuals’ idleness.

Following this, Seebohm Rowntree carried out a similar survey in York to see if the results of Booth’s study would be similar to that in other cities. He chose York because he claimed that it was a ‘representative provincial city’. He interviewed 46,754 people in their own homes between 1899-1901, excluding the 29,058 people that lived in households with at least one servant. He did this because he realised that if a person could afford to hire a servant, it was more than likely that they would not be suffering from. Rowntree checked local rent, costs of fuel and costs of clothing (Budget Standard approach) and unlike Booth, he also took into account the size of family and age of children in his placement of the poverty line. Taking this into account was important as if children were very young; they would be unable to earn a wage that would contribute towards a family’s living. His results showed that there were two degrees of poverty that people were suffering from in York; primary and secondary poverty. Primary poverty was defined by ‘income that was insufficient to provide the basic necessities for biological efficiency (e.g. food, fuel, shelter and clothing)’. Meanwhile, others suffered from secondary poverty even though usually they had enough income to cover these four basic necessities. This would be because emergencies would occur (e.g. household repairs), and subsequently money would have to be diverted from the necessities to fund the emergency. Following this he concluded that 21s 8d per week would be required to keep a man, wife and three children out of poverty. This meant that in 1901, approximately 28% of the population of York were in poverty: 10% in primary and 18% in secondary poverty.

In addition, Seebohm Rowntree identified external factors concerning poverty that the individual could have little control over. The first of these was a ‘poverty lifecycle’. He pointed out that the majority of working class families went through predictable stages of comparative poverty and prosperity. For example, a family was likely to suffer from poverty when a couple had children as more money would have to be spent in order to feed and cloth additional members of the family, even though no extra money was available. However as these children grow older, they bring in wages, which results in the family becoming relatively wealthier. Nevertheless, as time goes on, the children leave and the couple become older and main breadwinner (the husband) may be unable to work and thus poverty sets in again. This concept of a poverty cycle was important as it reinforced Booth’s findings, which showed that poverty was not the fault of the individual.

Furthermore Rowntree also identified economic and social causes of poverty. His work also showed how the ‘nature of casual labour made it impossible for families to budget as there earnings were so uncertain’. Moreover, social causes of poverty including poor health, poor housing and poor education also contributed to poverty amongst the working class. Poor housing and health seemed to be linked and would often mean workers could not work. Whilst a poor education meant that labourers could not find better, well paid jobs as they were not qualified.

In the latter part of the 20th century, the definition of poverty appeared to change slightly. A focus upon ‘social exclusion’ seemed to have occurred. Social exclusion refers to a process in which certain members of society do not participate in the normal activities of a citizen of that society. New Labour identified those who were not in work and those on low wages as the most likely groups to suffer from social exclusion. New Labour’s response to this was to introduce to new polices to target these groups; including the introduction of minimum wages and ‘New Deals’.

However, Charles Murray, from the New Right argued that an underclass had formed that had a separate and distinct culture from the mainstream society. This distinct culture was based upon purposely avoiding work and living off benefits e.g. teenage single parent mothers. The reasoning behind this appeared to be based on the argument used in the 1800s during the introduction of the workhouse tests; an over-generous government had allowed people to become over-reliant on it and purposely choose not to work and ‘live the easy life’. Charles Murray and other New Right thinkers have used this argument to place the blame squarely at the feet of ‘over-generous governments’ for allowing this to occur. He suggested that the only way to overcome modern day poverty is to cut benefits (and thus in order to discourage people from not working. Similarly according to the New Right, reducing taxes would encourage more people to work more; as they would earn more working than being on benefits; mirroring the idea of ‘less eligibility’ from the 19th century.

Correspondingly, New Labour’s policies have reflected similar views. Able-bodied people should work; and only those who they cannot work or prove that they are looking for work shall receive benefits. Introduction of new policies such as ‘the minimum wage’ and working families’ tax credit is aimed at encouraging people who can, to work. Also for those who do not have necessary training, ‘new deals’ are available in which people receive help by being trained. This appears to suggest that individuals can escape poverty by simply having a job.