Poverty
Among those working in poverty alleviation, a fundamental point of contention is whether individual behavior or structural barriers are the reason the poor stay poor. Charles Karelis rejects the economic assumptions underlying the dispute, challenging both sides of the ideological spectrum. Read the Boston Globe article about his ideas, including bee stings and car dents, here.
Karelis, a professor at George Washington University, argues that current thinking depends on economic assumptions that don’t apply to the poor. According to Karelis, those of modest means are more likely to have a worldview shaped by deprivation rather than plenty. Life is about problems to be solved (rent, transportation, credit card bills, day care, etc) rather than goods to be consumed. Even if some problems are alleviated, the pile that remains is still daunting. In this way, poverty and wealth are two fundamentally different human experiences rather than points along a continuum of income or assets.
The idea that “poverty causes poverty” tests decades of research and many current policies and programs. Karelis believes that policymakers don’t need to worry about the work ethic of the poor, and that what would really help is reducing the number of economic hardships they have by giving out money with no strings attached.
It’s a provocative idea, and the analogies make sense to me. How closely the analogies track the experience of poverty is another question. Putting that aside, if what Karelis says is true, how does it relate to housing vouchers? Asset building programs? Earned Income Tax Credit? Foreclosure prevention? Does viewing the poor as starting from deprivation rather than from strength have an effect on our relationship to them?
This blog focuses on place
This blog focuses on place and placemaking and all that makes it work--historic preservation, urban design, transportation, asset-based community development, arts & cultural development, commercial district revitalization, tourism & destination development, and quality of life advocacy--along with doses of civic engagement and good governance watchdogging.
2-1-1
I would give 2-1-1 a call. It's a free, confidential hotline (similar to 9-1-1 or 4-1-1) that can direct you to resources or health and human services to fit your needs.
Good luck.
health insurance co-pays?
is there any monitary help for people who have private helth insurance but cant make the co-pays because of unemployment / poverty and disabilities?
Thanks all for your
Thanks all for your comments.
Liz, thanks for posting the link to the Family Independence Initiative. It looks like an innovative and hopeful way of doing anti-poverty work, and seems to track Karelis's ideas. Ongoing evaluations will provide more insight into its effectiveness, but in the meantime check their Reports page (http://www.fiinet.org/reports/) for the "Two-year report" that details their experiences from 2001-03.
Phillipe and Kendra, you might also be interested in the report found at the link above. It's a program evaluation rather than an empirical study, but you might find it a useful starting point. Kendra, I also appreciate a study of poverty as an experience rather than being attributed as resulting from "irrational behavior." It provides an opportunity to dig deeper into the multiple factors involved, and re-examine the approach we take to this work (i.e., strengths-based vs. needs-based). Family Independence Initiative looks like a strengths-based approach in action, which is absolutely refreshing.
Jeff, your point about providing options is a good one. That's what having financial means gives you -- options. In favoring a program like the Earned Income Tax Credit, Karelis argues that giving money with no strings attached would be just as effective as traditional anti-poverty measures, with less bureaucracy. Again, this runs counter to many ideas about anti-poverty work, but money without strings does mean options.
In talking with others about this, some have pointed out that the same social problems -- substance abuse, domestic violence, credit issues, and others -- may strike no matter what your income. In this case, what separates the rich from the poor is the financial means to alleviate problems. Perhaps Karelis addresses this in his book, but it casts a different light on the contrasting experiences of wealth and poverty. Is the distinction still about consumption vs. problems, or is it more nuanced?
Allison, great
Allison, great commentary--thanks for highlighting this article. It is definitely provocative. I appreciate Phillipe's comment that the empirics would have to be explored, (and, I'd add, implications understood) to assess to what extent I agree with Karelis' argument. But the focus on the experiential aspect of poverty is refreshing. Particularly striking: 'poverty isn't about less consumption, but about many problems'. As an ethnographer, I'd love to hear more empirical exploration of this...
These are definitely some
These are definitely some interesting ideas. It’s always difficult for generic solutions to alleviate specific and individual problems, so perhaps changing the way we view the situation and those involved will help provide better options. As the article and others have pointed out, you just can’t assume that everyone has the same needs and perspectives, or in other words, the same problems.
One thing that concerns me about this issue is the massive and increasing disparity between the wealthy and the poor. The statistics over the last 10-20 years are amazing, and appalling. The status quo programs and approaches just aren’t working. The problem for me is not that the rich are getting richer (which of course they are), but that the poor isn’t.
Allison, welcoming to
Allison, welcoming to blogging. This post is very much related to my interests. It is nice to see a scholar challenging conventional "wisdom" regarding poverty by exposing the limitations of both conservative and liberal assumptions about it. How refreshing. As for what he is advocating, I'd have to spend more time examining the empirical data before I could decide if I support it or not. Nicely done blogwarrior.
Allison - this is really
Allison - this is really interesting stuff. From a social work perspective I agree with the first comment above. We have to appreciate the position and perspective of those we attempt to assist in some way. If we are in the helping fields, we cannot assume we have the answers, rather it is our responsibility to work to understand what those we want to help see as the answers.
Additionally, I wanted to point out some work along a similar concept being undertaken by the Family Independence Initiative (http://www.fiinet.org/). Check out their website to see the success they've had in making awards to families to use as they see fit in reaching their personal and economic goals. They operate under the philosophy that families must be responsible for achieving their goals, and they know best how to get there. By focusing on successes, rather than how the money is spent, they've seen remarkable results. It's a really different approach that we should think more about.
This is an interesting point
This is an interesting point that most social services overlook. You can't assume that the person you are tying to help has the same needs as you do. You really have to understand their needs in their context. Thanks for pointing this out.
Post new comment