Theory of Poverty - Haralambos Notes

Measurement of Poverty

Poverty is generally measured in absolute terms i.e. based on nutritional intake and other physical needs. Such type of measurement is usually defined as fixed poverty line e.g. one dollar poverty line.In long terms poverty measured in terms of absolute poverty tend to decrease with increasing income of people, but relatively as IM Rubinow has suggested luxury become necessity becomes need . Hence poverty according to IM Rubinow should be measured in relative terms to overcome the drawback suffered by absolute poverty measurement. Able-smith and Townsend in their analysis "poor and the poorest" used relative poverty measures to establish that cause of poverty is largely associated with large family sizes where as a similar study based on absolute poverty measurements by Seebohm Rowntree in NY over half a century concluded that sickness old age and inability to do work are major reason for poverty.

Theory of Poverty

1. Theory of vicious cycle : Poverty is a positive feedback system. It makes sure that poor remain poor. According to David Capluvitz , poor pay more for what they purchase because they are poor. For eg. they purchase in smaller lots or on credit and have to pay more then rich. If a poor buys a car, he has to pay more premium on insurance as the changes for theft in his locality is more. Another sociologist Ralph Miliband has pointed out that economic deprivation is cause of political deprivation and Political deprivation make sure that economic deprivation prevail.

2. Theory of Poverty Culture: Oscar Lewis is pioneer in field of poverty culture. According to Oscar Lewis poverty has impact at individual level , family level and community level.It develops a culture and this culture help maintain poverty. The impact of poverty at all three levels are illustrated below:

• Individual Level : Poor at individual level feel helpless, dependence and their outlook to society is fatalistic.
• Family Level : Are unable to maintain family and fulfill family requirements.They abandon wife and child. Most of the marriages end in divorce and family head is usually mother.
• Community level : They are not part of union or political institution . Participation of poor in public institutes like school, hospital and union is very less.

Walter B Miller agrees with Oscar Lewis he sees such poverty culture in American Soceity. According to him they focus on mascularity features like roughness and tufness. This sub culture of poverty provides low - skilled and low wage workforce.

Elliot Liebow has proposed theory of manly flaws. According to the theory man in order to hide his failure take support of muscularity, tuffness and tries to justify himself on those account. The reason for divorce , domestic fight can be explained using theory of manly flaws.

3. Theory of Situational Constraint : Theory of contrain rejects the idea of poverty sub - culture. According to theory of contrain given by Hylans Lewis, poor are unable to translate many values into reality due to poverty. They are contrained by poverty and once such constrains are removed they are more likely to follow values of mainstream and hence there is no such poverty sub - culture but its reaction to the constrains imposed on them by poverty.

4. Marxian Perspective :Marxist blame private ownership and capitalism as root cause of poverty. Poors are having less bargain power in share of profits and hence capital owner takes away majority of profit. Poverty provide them labour and help them in maintaining low wages and higher profit margin. JC Kincaid , a Marxist has emphasized that poverty is problem due to unequal sharing of surplus of production, however govt disguises the true identity of problem and false diagnosis is done. He found little evidences that redistribution of wealth by govt welfare programs  has actually reduced poverty , it has only reduced harshness of poverty. Poverty as wealth is inevitable in capitalist system of production.

Westergaard and Resler has accused govt and welfare agencies for searching cause of poverty.Diagonsis is false, they try to disguise true nature of exploitation.Further he has accused welfare professions for being agents of ruling class. Poverty cannot be abolished in capitalist society. Radical changes is required for its removal.

5. Weberian Perspective : According to Weber, class situation of a individual is dependent on market situation. With technological advancement demand for non-skill workers is decreasing. One can command rewards according to his skills.Not all working class is poor only old, sick, large families and people with general skill find difficulties in obtaining employment

Herbert G Hans has stated that poverty is always not evil, it also serves some functions in society.According to the author poverty helps in maintaining low wages and helps in increases profit for capital owners. Poverty provides baseline for failure. Poor people also become scapegoat for non-poors , thereby they help reduce their pressure. Benefit to non-poor is also one of the reason due to which non-poors are reluctant to address problem of poverty.

Solution to Poverty 

1. American way : American sociologists have taken poverty culture theories for solution of povery. According to them poverty is due to culture of poverty that is perpetuating from generation to generation. American govt policies are targeted towards re-socialization of poor with middle class values. These policies have put entire responsibility of poverty and being poor on individuals. American sociologists are against providing direct benefits to poor in form of cash or subsidy. Review of American policies against elimination of poverty suggest that they have failed miserably.

2. UK way: UK has adopted welfare policies like social security including but not limited to direct cash transfers to poor and unemployed.

Land Acquisition Act 1894

Land Acquisition Act 1894 , provides power to state and central government for acquisition of private land for public utility purpose. The act also provides legal right to government on land that do not belong to anyone. The act has serious flaws and requires amendment for safeguarding interest of poor farmers, land less labours and community at large.

The Land Acquisition Act , states that state and central government may take private land in her possession for public purpose. The state government has to pay compensation to land owners at market price. The Act also states that since the acquisition is forceful in nature the compensation should be above market rate (normally 15% above the market rate)

While act consider compensation to landowners, it does not talk about other stake holder who are affected from acquisition. The land in rural India is normally in name of male family members, thus females are largely sufferers. The community ties are broken and service providers like barber, artisans, fisherman , self-employed are also affected due to displacement of village and community. The act believes that the farmers and poors to whom compensation is provided are fully aware of saving and investment opportunity available in market and compensation will take care of their livelihood. In fact these are mostly illiterate and compensation amount is usually utilized in consumption, leaving them mostly worse-off.

The Act is also silent on the definition of public utility. The term public purpose is vague and several interpretations can be made. In case of Baji Rao Kote case , the government has acquires land for providing way to Saibaba Temple. In the judgment court said that neither court is capable nor it is in its scope to define public purpose and said that the state if believes that the it is for public purpose then they can acquire land under land acquisition Law.

In the case of Yamuna ExpressWay the land acquisition was done and given to third party for utilization. Amusement parks were also developed on the land. The court in its judgment has said that the term public purpose has broader meaning then public utility and even if it satisfies the need of a particular class/community it is public purpose.

In sharan Vs UP state, state was acquiring fertile land for construction of jail, the court has defined public purpose as the act that serves purpose of larger community.

In another case of Radhey Shyam Vs UP State regarding acquisition of agricultural land for industrial purpose in Gautam Budh Nagar court has noticed that fertile land was begin acquired for residential purpose and the emergency clause of act was used when protest was made against acquisition of land. The victims are generally poor and unaware of their rights and accept it as their fate.Even if some of them are educated they are unaware of functioning of court.

Under the chapter-7 of act, the government can also acquire land for companies. The act specifies that in case whole of the amount is paid by company then the land is said to be acquire by company and company has to adhere to strict norms of chapter-7 , however if government also pays part of the acquisition amount even if this amount is Rs 100 or Rs 1 the acquisition is said to be done by government and company need not to go through chapter-7 rules. Now the government can give land to the company for public purpose i.e for setting up of industry. The government believes that industrialization will generate employment and will contribute to grow hence it is a public purpose.

The vague definition of public purpose has open the way for forceful acquisition of land and then transferring same to companies and third party developers for their private use.

The new proposed Land acquisition act is improvement over some of the lacunae. The word public purpose has been defined as betterment of general public. The chapter-7 in old acct has been removed. Now state government can acquire land for company if company is already having 70% of land. It also states that government can acquire land for joint ventures and when land has been acquired for giving it to third party for development and use for not more than 40 years. However the chapter 7 has been removed but it has opened new possibilities for acquiring land for industrialization. It has put the condition for owning 70% of land and not 70% consent. The 70% land can be acquired from 2% large land owners but this will make them eligible to ask more land from government without asking consent of remaining 98% .

The act has also included social impact analysis to assess and identify the real stakeholders that might get affected out of displacement. The act has setup a limit of 400 families in plains and 200 families in rural area for taking up rehabilitation program.

Although the act is positive step in direction of better identification of stake holders and their rehabilitation, but have escape clause making them prone for unworkable solutions. The government has given advantage to companies by making acquisition for easy. The government seems to be in favour of mass industrialization and still believes in trickle down theory.