Social exclusion or poverty individualisation? An empirical test of two recent and competing poverty theories

Abstract

In recent years, two new theoretical perspectives on poverty in modern welfare societies have emerged: the perspective of ‘cumulative disadvantage’ and poverty individualisation. Both perspectives challenge traditional class-based poverty definitions. This article notes certain limitations that pertain to the relatively few empirical tests that have been performed to support these theories. The purpose of the article is to demonstrate that the results obtained depend largely on the type of poverty definition applied (income or deprivation), the actual data used (national or comparative) and the extent to which these data represent an observation period that is long enough to provide a reliable basis for testing the theories in question. The article concludes that because only few Danes experience long-term poverty and social exclusion, the combination of class and individual biography is important. In other words, structural conditions and, to a lesser degree, group risks drive individuals to the social margin.

Indenfor de seneste år er der fremkommet to nyere teoretiske perspektiver på fattigdom i moderne velfærdsstater; på den ene side perspektivet om ‘kumulative ulemper’ og på den anden side perspektivet om ‘fattigdomsindividualisering’. Begge disse perspektiver udfordrer traditionelle klassebaserede fattigdomsdefinitioner. Denne artikel tager afsæt i de begrænsninger som har været forbundet med de relativt få empiriske efterprøvninger som er gennemført af disse fattigdomsteorier. Formålet med artiklen er at vise at de eksisterende efterprøvninger af fattigdomsteorierne i høj grad afhænger af studiernes valg af fattigdomsdefinition (indkomst eller afsavn), de konkrete empiriske data (nationale eller komparative) og i hvilken udstrækning disse data repræsenterer en observationsperiode, der er tilstrækkelig lang til at kunne efterprøve fattigdomsteorierne. Artiklen konkluderer at fordi der kun er relativt få danskere som oplever langvarig fattigdom og social eksklusion er kombinationen mellem klasse- og individuel biografi vigtig. Med andre ord er det de strukturelle forhold, og i mindre grad grupperisici, som fører folk i en social marginaliseret position i samfundet.

Keywords:

• poverty
• individualisation
• democratisation
• social exclusion

Keywords:

• fattigdom
• social eksklusion
• individualisering
• demokratisering

Notes

1. In this article, the concept of class does not refer to any particular class scheme, for example, Wright (1985) or Goldthorpe (1996), but to a broader sociological idea that social class is central to understanding and explaining the unequal distribution of power and privilege in capitalist societies.

2. Layte and Whelan use the terms cumulative disadvantage and social exclusion interchangeably and maintain that the term ‘cumulative disadvantage’ in the European context is understood and defined as social exclusion. In the remainder of the article, we use the term ‘social exclusion’.

3. Their class schema is based on ‘employment relationships’, the so-called Erikson-Goldthorpe-Portecarero (EGP) class schema.

4. Certain individuals who are most at risk of social exclusion (and poverty) are ‘excluded’ from participating in surveys, for example, the homeless, individuals who live in institutions and prisons, and asylum seekers (Author 2, 2004a, Levitas et al., 2007).

5. Social class I consists of directors, higher-ranking white-collar workers and individuals with higher education.

6. The concept of intersectionality has its roots in feminist activism and research, but it has been discussed whether intersectionality is an approach, a methodology, a theory, a concept or even a paradigm (Davis, 2008).

7. These figures are based on the OECD 50% median income poverty line. Poor students are excluded from the figures. Long-term poverty is defined as being below the poverty line in three consecutive years or more.

8. These benefits were abolished in January 2012 by the new Social Democrat led government elected in 2011.