How much is enough?
NEW STATESMAN Published 02 July
2008
What do we mean by poverty in the UK
in 2008? The Joseph Rowntree Foundation brought together groups of ordinary
Brits to discuss what a minimum income should be
Debates about
poverty and disadvantage in the UK are hamstrung by a lack of a well defined
consensus about what is an adequate standard of living for today's society.
We are
instinctively outraged if we see a child going to school with holes in their
shoes, a pensioner going without a meal in order to pay the gas bill or a
single parent who has never been able to take her child on holiday or to the
cinema. But we have not drawn clear lines about what level of deprivation
should trigger public concern and action.
With all the
current debates about ending child poverty and about inequality in society, are
we any closer to coming to a common understanding about what is a socially
acceptable standard of living?
The most frequently
used threshold of poverty is a measure of relative income – 60 per cent of the
current median. (The person with the median income in Britain has an income
greater than exactly half the population).
Most people accept
that poverty has a relative element – that a basic living standard acceptable
in Dickens’ time may be unacceptable today. But the decision to draw the line
at 60 per cent is arbitrary. So when a progressive government redistributes
income to bring families above this abstract poverty line, there are always
those who challenge whether being in relative poverty really constitutes a
hardship.
A new report, A minimum income for
Britain, from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation takes a big step
forward by describing a threshold of a socially acceptable income according to
judgements made by members of the public.
Based on detailed
discussions among groups of ordinary people about what should go into a minimum
budget for different kinds of household, this work aims to start building a
social consensus about how much is enough.
Such a standard
will not replace the official poverty line but helps us to interpret what it
means. In fact, it legitimises the effort to get families with children above
60 per cent median income by showing that all families who live below it cannot
afford the standard of living defined by the members of the public who took
part in this research. Typically, families with children need about 70 per cent
of median to reach such a standard.
In creating a new debate about minimum living standards, this exercise is not
just about numbers. It encourages people to think about what exactly we define
as necessities today and why. All the participants in the research agreed that
mere food and shelter are not enough – that an adequate living standard needs
to involve some level of social participation. For a child, this means for
example being able to take a present to a birthday party and having a basic
computer on which to do their homework. With any luck, this will bury once and
for all the outdated idea that people at the bottom of society are not “poor”
unless they are starving. Or the inference that those who get support from the
state have no right to participate fully in society.
A debate of this
kind could also start to put more emphasis in public discourse about what
unites rather than what divides us. Images of "chavs" who are on low
incomes but expect flashy trainers and wide TV screens play into new class
stereotypes. But this research brought together people from a wide range of
income groups in lengthy discussions, and they reached a high level of
consensus over what is necessary.
Parents from all
classes could agree that for a British teenager in 2008, a mobile phone is essential
from the point of view of safety and social inclusion, but that buying a top of
the model range with unlimited minutes was not. (The budgets included a cheap
£25 pay as you go model from a supermarket, expected to last five years).
They also agreed
how important it was to teach teenagers that wanting something is not the same
as needing it. We all face difficult decisions about prioritising necessities
and distinguishing them from luxuries that we could do without, when balancing
our own budget. If we can approach these issues by building consensus rather
than division, we will become a more cohesive society, and also become more
clear-headed about when we need to tackle unacceptable inequalities.
Donald Hirsch is poverty adviser to
the Joseph Rowntree Foundation