Individualism or Structuralism–Differences in the Public Perception of Poverty between the United States and East-Central Europe

ABSTRACT

Public perception of poverty is assumed to have a significant effect on the legitimacy and viability of welfare policies. The paper compares the public perceptions of poverty in the United States and in East-Central Europe and tests whether they reflect the individualism–structuralism dimension. It examines attributions for poverty in a preselected county in each area. Primary data collection is carried out using the methods of systematic data collection. These methods first certify a certain level of cultural competence in the field of interest, then provide reliable results with the use of a significantly smaller sample than mainstream social science methods. The paper concludes that the structural and individual explanations of poverty are endorsed to the same extent in both countries. Public perception of poverty does not reflect the differences of the welfare systems. The distinction between the two examined areas is sharpest with respect to health and health care-related items, to the family size, and to the role of friends. Policy makers need to be aware that it is vital to keep their minds open to both individualism and structuralism when working out anti-poverty strategies.

KEYWORDS:

• Perception of poverty
• individualism
• structuralism
• welfare system
• systematic data collection

Data Availability Statement

The datasets analyzed during the current study are available from the author on reasonable request.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. From 1973 to 1980, the ratio of those who believe that the government has to take actions to reduce income differences and of those who believed that the government is responsible for alleviating poverty decreased in the USA, based on a survey of the National Opinion Research Center (Mayer, 1993).

2. Less attention is paid to fatal causes of poverty because they are hard measure and estimate in a statistically reliable and meaningful way.

3. Items mentioned by fewer than five informants were excluded from further research in both countries.

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by Tempus Public Foundation (Tempus Közalapítvány) within the framework of Hungarian State Eötvös Scholarship.