Fundamental Requirements for Human Existence - Essay Example

Introduction Poverty is defined as the of lacking adequate food and shelter requirement to sustain human life. More specifically, this is termed as absolute poverty; the lack of material possessions or finance to meet the minimum basic human needs. These needs include clean water and sanitation, clothing, basic shelter, food and good health (Gordon, 2005). This essay will discuss poverty; its definition, causes, and implications. Theories on poverty will be examined. Facets of the society (political, social and economic) that directly interact with poverty will be discussed. Discussion In the course of the 20th Century, education was included to these needs and is now regarded as a basic human requirement. Gordon (2005, p.2) states that, “Another classification of poverty is relative poverty which refers to the lack or incapacity of meeting the accepted social levels of income or resources in comparison to the rest or majority of the individuals in that region.” Regions may be a society, country or a bloc of countries for example the European Union. Within these regions, a minimum income is decided upon factoring in the cost of living and cost of basic essential commodities. Each individual therefore has a minimum income requirement to live on and meet daily costs whether earning or earning indirectly as a dependant (for example house wives and children). Poverty can take various forms at any particular time. For instance, the inability to cater for ones medical needs while ill, reduced food intake causing malnutrition, inaccessibility of basic education and information due to cost, lack of clean water and good sanitation and homelessness. Also, living in unsafe environments or areas of high security risks, discrimination and social exclusion can be attributed to prevalent poverty. Gordon (2005, p.3) states that, “A political aspect of poverty is the lack of representation and inability to take part in societal decision making processes or lack of representation.” This is because the members of society wield immense power through their wealth and can influence decisions at will whether or not the decisions are favorable to less advantaged members of the society or not. Decisions and schemes favorable to the poor can alleviate and reduce poverty margins in the society and therefore poverty is more pronounced in areas with poor representation of persons. Poverty can be caused by the occurrence of natural disasters or war. This is due to the loss or waste of resources, breakdown of infrastructure and channels of provision of social amenities, upsets in living standard and loss of property. This leads to economic recession on individuals, families and groups. Several theories have been postulated to explain the emergence, prevalence and sustenance of poverty. Social scientists and economists pore over its causes, catalysts and effects in an attempt to alleviate it and ensure desirable livelihoods of all members in different societies for the wellbeing and perpetuity of the human race. The first and perhaps one of the most significant theories is the Structuralism of poverty within society. Marxism, otherwise referred to as conflict structuralism, explains poverty as a result of the existing divisions of social class. Field (2002, p.5) states that, “Individuals within a society are categorized into classes depending on their incomes and accumulated wealth. A class of particular interest is that of the working class and unemployed.” Individuals in this class have little or insignificant amounts of accumulated wealth adequate to guarantee material sustenance. A direct result is their servitude to the rich: the class owning most of the wealth. In this regard, this wealth is disposable and works to serving their interests and ensuring domination of this class over the society and especially over the working class. Conflict structuralism considers poverty a necessary ingredient as it drives demand for wealth and in effect constructive work. A faction of sociologists disagree with this theory stating that the presence and prevalence of poverty is driven by the poor themselves claiming that they are in control of their own income earning capacity and ability to acquire wealth and provisions. The poor are regarded as deciding to remain poor as individuals or as groups of individuals developing a culture and mindset of poverty thus ensuring its perpetuity. In both arguments, researchers find common ground that the presence of structure in the society prompts poverty and its presence reinforces the structure of society thus sustaining poverty. The second theory of interest is the Individualistic theory. Cliff (2012) acknowledges that, “Sociologists have blamed poverty on the poor claiming that they are lazy and have no intention of working.” The poor should therefore not be allowed access to the basic human requirements and governing bodies should not concern themselves with the welfare of these stating that poverty and the moral character of individuals have a direct correlation. This view is held by many around the world suggesting that intervention by any means to help/ aid the poor lead to dependency aggravated laziness. Such resource utilization is detrimental to the state since it justifies laziness and unwillingness to work, and negatively impacts the hardworking tax payer who’s hard earned income is used on the poor. Cliff (2012) suggests that, “Aid should instead be directed towards those in genuine need and incapacity to earn wages, such as the disabled.” This view has its opponents who state that the welfare system is the prime cause of poverty as it is tested on people’s means and is restrictive with aid. Poverty should be tackled and alleviated by raising all the members of society to the same level through universal or all round provision. This would eliminate dependency and have all people at per with equal and adequate means of self sustenance. Another theory of poverty is the Culture of Poverty. This concept was put forth by Oscar Lewis, after conducting studies on the urban poor. The theory explains that poverty is attributed to the manner in which groups of people condition their livelihoods to a particular design which is passed on from generation to generation. This also relates to mental attitudes and perceptions of the individuals which may trickle down to their offspring and the cycle continues. Lewis (1997, p.4) notes that, “An individual may feel inferior, incapacitated, helpless or neglected and as a result in living for the present with little regard for saving and future needs.” This leads to a great affinity for materialistic pleasures, high divorce rates and misguided priorities. Health, social needs, and financial stability are relegated in the pyramid of needs perpetuating poverty. These attitudes and lifestyles are easily and quickly adopted by children of this culture and may be indifferent or unmoved to arising opportunities and favorable changes in their environment. As a result, despite the improvement, acknowledgement and creation of opportunities, the children grows up oblivious of their good fortune which might have been absent during their parents’ time. Lewis (1997) further states that this trend is mostly prevalent in 3rd world countries on the track to industrialization. Criticisms to this theory are the prevalence of poverty in industrialized countries which have marginalized ethnic communities and participation of the poor in community and social development schemes in 3rd world countries yet to industrialize. An example of the latter is the active participation of individuals and groups of individuals in local governments in local income generation schemes in the sub Saharan African countries. The Underclass Theory of Poverty developed by Charles Murray, an American sociologist, closely links the individualistic theory of poverty that blames the individual for his or her current state of poverty with the culture of poverty theory that blames poverty on negative attitudes. He conducted study with Britain as his sample population in 1989. He stated that the underclass is determined by the deplorable and inexcusable behavior of individuals in response to their condition rather than the condition they are in. For example, the unwillingness to work, unplanned parenthood and crime aggravating their current status in life rather than working to improve their condition. Field (2002, p.4) states that, “Illegitimate children are more likely to be raised in a single family with their mothers being of a low social class.” The children are raised in misery, lack a father figure in their lives and consequently run a higher risk of being wild and adopting socially unacceptable behaviors such as criminal activities, hooliganism and with inadequate education. Bruner (2009, p.3) notes that, “People are more withdrawn in these societies due to rising crime rates and the breakdown in community results in general unwillingness to indulge in economic activities or work.” Welfare systems, as he explains, are to blame since the benefits accorded citing that the legislation on Homeless people enacted in 1977 sympathizes and give priority to unmarried mothers. This has de-stigmatized illegitimacy and removed the disincentives that existed in the society against having children out of wedlock thus increasing these cases. Criticisms to this theory state that the theory is unsubstantiated by hard facts and evidence. In addition, the majority of single mothers do not remain as so, the ‘underclass’ seek jobs and stability in their relationships. A variation of the underclass theory is that of Losing Out put forwarded by Frank Field. In this theory, Field states that the increase in poverty in Britain and there exists an underclass comprising of three groups of individuals; the people under long term unemployment, families with a single parent, and the elderly. Field (2002, p.15) asserts that, “The underclass is heavily dependant on the state for benefits.” These benefits are too low to accord them adequate living standards and have no means of escaping this dependency. The rise in numbers of the underclass is attributed to negative impacts of government policies, increasing resource parity between the rich and the poor, and stigmatization of the poor (perhaps as a result of the individualistic ideal). Poverty has been linked to various social, political and economic factors. Field (2002, p.18) states that, “The interaction of poverty with these factors can help describe its nature and prevalence in different societies.” As cited in most of the theories, the nature of state welfare affects and influences poverty levels. Most poverty stricken individuals receive benefits of various forms from their governments or donors. These benefits can be monetary or otherwise; such as housing projects, food and free education. Poverty can therefore be explained as the inadequacy or inability of benefits to meet the minimum human needs. Taxes are meant to redistribute wealth, but financial analysis indicated that the overall tax burden on the poor is much larger than that on the wealthy. The poor pay more proportionately to their income than the rich. In terms of healthcare, the rich spend more on healthcare and hence better and more focused care than the lower income group. Treatment and drugs are spent in larger quantities to this small fraction of the population while reasonably less is spent on the larger poor population. Healthcare is therefore disproportionate to health needs. Field (2002, p.22) adds that, “The relationship between poverty and labor is the amount of wages given to the employed. A large number of the poor are employed, but they receive insufficient or inadequate wages to meet their needs and those of their dependents.” Another proportion of the poor is unemployed and a common denominator between low wage employed and unemployed is their lack of skills. Unskilled labor is constantly being phased out by mechanization of labor. This added to narrow revenue margins in labor intensive industries have driven people out of employment and lower and reduced wages. Another facet of society contributing to poverty is the lack of political power amongst the poor. Employed persons are protected by trade unions, a privilege the unemployed do not have. In addition, the unemployed lack the necessary financial resources to organize, coordinate and launch effective protests backed by legal professionals. As a result, lack of financial might and economic resources denies the poor political freedom and democracy in fighting for their rights and political representation. Capitalist regimes support Marxism arguing that poverty is essential in driving the economy and wealth should be a reserve for the rich. Low wages have the effect of reducing the wage demand by reducing and controlling inflation. Demand for products is maintained at bay and thus requirement for wage increments is non existent. Economists argue that it is the presence of the poor that maintains the economic structure reinforced by unequal wages. Conclusion Poverty is the preserve of the poor and the various theories explaining its characteristics reiterate its continuity and avenues of perpetuity. Poverty is in all respects caused by human activities including inequitable resource allocation supported by capitalists, attitudes and perceptions related to colonial exploits and inequalities promoting social classes and structures. The individual may be to blame for his or her condition in life, but first, an equal ground and equal opportunities must be provided to validate this claim. Bibliography Bruner, C. (2009). Feminism and Poverty: New Directions in Advocacy and Public Policy. Child and Family Policy Center: Indiana. Cliff, W. (2012). Causes and Effects of Poverty. CliffsNotes.com. [online] Available at: http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/topicArticleId-26957,articleId-26882.html (Accessed 18 May 2012) Field, F. (2002). Theories of Poverty. Blacks Academy.net Gordon, D. (2005). Indicators of Poverty & Hunger Expert Group Meeting on Youth Development Indicators. United Nations Headquarters Lewis, O. (1997). ‘The Culture of Poverty.’ Society, vol. 35 (2): 7-9 Read More