IPSL Essay

So I'm currently struggling through 6 essay questions for my Organization and Volunteerism class midterm, so I thought I'd post one of the ones I actually enjoyed writing on here. This one's for you, Mom.  

            In his article, Bradshaw discusses how the five competing theories of poverty shape anti-poverty struggles. Poverty can be defined as the lack of basic food, shelter, medical care, and safety.  On a more advanced level, poverty can be socially defined as “relative deprivation”. What is a necessity to a person in one community may not be a necessity to a person in another community. This is a very subjective viewpoint. On a more objective level, the definition of poverty is a statistical measure established by the government on the amount of money a person or family needs to survive. Although fixing poverty is the dominant theme within community development, each theory is different.

            The first theory is of individual deficiencies.  It is caused by laziness, bad choice, or incompetence. This theory is based on how hard one works. It says that competition rewards winners, and punishes those who do not work hard or make bad choices. To reduce this type of poverty, a community can develop “second chance” programs, make counseling easily obtainable, and having some sort of a safety net to avoid letting people fall into this trap. This is a very dated theory of poverty. In some cases, yes, this is true. However, a negative implication of this theory is that not everyone starts from the same line in life. Some people are born with more. Some people are born with less. Many anti-poverty programs are not designed with this in mind, and punish those who do not meet their standards. This theory also plays a psychological role. It forces those who are impoverished to believe that they are responsible for their own poverty, which is not always the case. In my opinion, this is not a positive approach for an anti-poverty program.

            The second theory is that poverty is caused by cultural belief systems that support subcultures of poverty. This means that the system that this individual belongs to; whether religious, cultural, etc. supports traditions and values that are non-productive and contrary to the norms of success. In a way, this actually is very similar to Bradshaw’s first theory of poverty. The main difference is that the individual is not at fault, but rather the cultural belief system. Ways to combat poverty in this theory are alternative socialization with other social cohorts, development with after-school groups, and other leadership exercises that show students how important it is to be productive without taking away their cultural beliefs.

            The third theory is that poverty is caused by economic, political, and social distortions and discrimination. This theory is not an individualistic theory of poverty like the first two, but rather one that looks at the systemic barriers that caused an individual to not obtain opportunities and resources in the first place. A positive implication of this theory of poverty is that it retracts the psychological segment that it is the fault of the individual that they are impoverished, and places the blame on the government. This theory suggests that the economic system is structured in a way that poor people will fall behind, no matter how proficient at their jobs they may be. For example, working full time at a minimum wage job will not allow a single parent to be economically self-sufficient. If a worker is unskilled, this creates structural barriers that prevent one from getting a higher paying job, or even one with health benefits. A negative implication of this theory of poverty is that since so many of these structural barriers exist, there is no getting out of poverty and the individual will have to remain there for the entirety of his or her life. To combat this theory of poverty, the entire system would have to change. Today, there are many policy programs that try to create jobs, improve schooling for the poor, and remove discrimination basis from housing, banking, education, and more. From a basic level, social movements have exerted pressures on vulnerable parts of the system, and at a more advanced level, legal changes to enforce civil rights of the poor are needed. One of the most forward changes suggested was by William Quigley in 2003. He advocated for an amendment to guarantee a job to anyone who wants one and to guarantee that anyone working full time would be able to earn a living wage.

            The fourth theory claims that geographic disparities are the reason that so many are in poverty. It says that social advantages and disadvantages concentrate in separate areas, and that a way to combat poverty would be to nationally redistribute funds, and concentrate on development of local assets.  The observation that poverty is rampant in certain areas is an old one, and there are reasons why particular regions lack the economic base to compete. On a superficial level, my first thought was of rural poverty, because people do not have such access to materials and goods one could find in a city. However, because I live so close to New York City, I have seen many people both in poverty and/or homeless in my life.  However, the redistribution of funds would not make many people happy, so better options to combat this theory of poverty are to redevelop areas and to start rural networking programs.

            The fifth and last theory of poverty is one that is cumulative and cyclical. It says that the first four forms of poverty are all interdependent, and once an individual falls into the spiral it is near impossible to escape. I agree with this theory the most, because the factors of each interact in complex ways. Each of the theories an individual can fall into has some mutual dependence on another theory. This cycle will repeat itself at both the individual and community levels. Individually, no income means not being able to purchase necessities such as food, water, and shelter. This means the community will suffer because they will lose economic stimulation. This leads to a raise in prices so owners of businesses can maintain their income. Because all of the individual’s income is going to these necessities, they will have no money to save and invest. No savings mean that it is especially difficult for offspring to get both the proper health care and a quality education, which would cycle around for the offspring failing to get a decent job. This theory of poverty also incorporates the psychological factor that so many of the other theories encompassed. It leads to weak motivation, no self-confidence, and a general sense of despair. This theory of poverty links economic, social, and political factors. A negative implication is that since this theory is so complex, it must require a complex solution as well. I think that this is the most realistic theory, but it is the hardest to solve because the linkages are so difficult to break. One method of breaking these linkages is a community program that builds self-sufficiency. These programs must be able to link organizations and individuals, to try to break one of the interdependent linkages in the spiral of poverty.

            In conclusion, there is a need to close the gap between the impoverished and rich communities. Contemporary anti-poverty programs in the United States are not designed with compassion in mind. They use punishment or the threat of punishment in order to change behavior. In order to change poverty within the system, the system itself must change. There is a necessity for a development of anti-poverty community development programs, and to ensure that they are implemented and sustainable.

Also, here's a picture from Papallecta and one of me and my host mom, Ana Lucia!