Century sees changing causes of deprivation, but the fight against poverty goes on

“That in this land of abounding wealth, during a time of perhaps unexampled prosperity, probably more than one fourth of the population are living in poverty, is a fact which may well cause great searchings of heart.” Seebohm Rowntree (son of Joseph), writing in 1899.

Causes, consequences and definitions of poverty in Britain have altered during the past 100 years. But a report published to mark the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s centenary concludes that the low incomes of a substantial minority in Britain still exclude them from the fruits of growing prosperity enjoyed by the majority.

One hundred years of poverty and policy, launched at the Foundation’s centenary conference in York, concludes that social deprivation lays down a continuing political challenge that is likely to intensify as the 21st century progresses. The report, by leading researchers from the London School of Economics, also looks back to the turn of the last century, when Joseph Rowntree, the confectionery manufacturer, was profoundly influenced by a detailed study of poverty carried out by his son, Seebohm, in York.

It finds that today’s ‘poverty line’ of 60 per cent of median household income is much higher in simple purchasing power terms than the measure devised by Seebohm Rowntree – which was based on the minimal costs of food and housing needed to maintain ‘physical efficiency’. But as a measure of poverty relative to what most people are currently earning or can afford, the two measures are surprisingly similar. Comparisons between the 1899 report and figures for 2001/2 taken from the Family Resources Survey show that:

• Just as a century ago, the biggest single group living in poverty are households with a working adult who earns low or irregular wages. However, the proportion of poor households placed in this category has fallen from 55 to 31 per cent.
• Having a main wage earner who is out of work accounts for a higher proportion of poor households (9 per cent) than a hundred years ago (2 per cent).
• Illness or old age of the main earner has become more important, accounting for 26 per cent of today’s poor households, compared with 5 per cent a century ago.
• Very large families (five or more children) have declined as a contributor to poverty from 22 per cent to 2 per cent of poor families.
• There is now a substantial group of poor households (27 per cent) whose circumstances are not explained by any of the ‘causes’ identified by Seebohm Rowntree. These include lone parent families, students and others.
• The proportion of men under 75 who are working has fallen from 93 per cent in 1901 to 67 per cent in 2001. Over the same period, the proportion of women who are in paid work has risen from 31 per cent to 56 per cent.
• In 1899, poorer households spent over half their income on food. In 2001/2 food bills represented only a sixth of total household expenditure.
• The poor families interviewed by Seebohm Rowntree were tenants. Today, renting is confined to one quarter of all households and many poor households are owner-occupiers.

Recording a century of change, the report describes how unemployment in the 1920s and 1930s became the leading cause of poverty. However, in the 1950s and 1960s the largest group living in poverty were older people.

Pensioner poverty declined in the 1970s, but in the 1980s levels of unemployment and lone parenthood increased at a time of rapidly widening income inequalilty. In 2000, a comparison among 15 European Union and other industrialised countries showed that only the United States and Ireland had worse relative poverty rates than Britain, and only the US had a worse relative rate of child poverty.

Drawing out policy lessons from the past for the future, the authors note that periods of progress in reducing poverty have occurred when policies have simultaneously tackled the causes and consequences of deprivation. The present Government’s emphasis on policies that seek to deal with many different aspects of childhood poverty and disadvantage can be viewed as a sign of strength.

On an optimist’s view of the future, current anti-poverty policies could create a virtuous circle where falling demands for welfare benefits free up resources to extend the scope for treating those who cannot work more generously.

On a pessimistic scenario, any success in tackling underlying inequalilties could still be overwhelmed by widening wealth inequality and low rates of pay for unskilled workers in an increasingly cut-throat, global market. An ageing population could also place heavy demands on social spending, leading to tax increases and reduced political enthusiasm for spending on anti-poverty policies.

Prof. John Hills, Director of the LSE’s Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion and a co-author of the report, said: “Looking ahead over the coming decades, there is no easy way of predicting whether the optimistic or the pessimistic view will prevail. But we are more likely to establish a virtuous circle if the need for progress on reducing poverty is given a high public and political profile.

“As Joseph Rowntree recognised when he signed his deed of trust one hundred years ago, sound evidence is one answer to the prejudice that has always surrounded poor people and poverty. Shining an honest light on reality in the poorest parts of our society is an important contribution that today’s researchers, following in Seebohm Rowntree’s footsteps, can continue to make.”

Note to Editors

One hundred years of poverty and policy by Howard Glennerster, John Hills, David Piachaud and Jo Webb is published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and available from York Publishing Services, 64 Hallfield Road, Layerthorpe, York Y031 7ZQ (01904 430033), price £8.95 plus £2 p&p.

For further information, contact:

Prof. John Hills (author) 020-7955 7419 (office)
Prof. David Piachaud (author) 020-7955 7369 (office)
Prof. Howard Glennerster (author) 0207 852 3560 (office)

David Utting (JRF Assoc. Director of Public Affairs) 020-7278 9665