Introduction:
There are three frameworks or approaches in the examination of poverty: the neo-classical conservative, the liberal and the radical schools. In this paper, I argue that the radical school of thought best approaches poverty from a standpoint that allows for the liberation of minorities from hegemonic norms. First, I will examine the conservative school understanding of poverty and how they inadequately address the values and views of minorities that result in oppressive policies. Second, I will critique the liberal school and how that paradigm also ineffectively acknowledges the perspectives of minorities that also lead to policies that are unjust. Finally, I will review the radical school and demonstrate how this framework best understands poverty from a viewpoint that allows for comprehensive liberating policy for the economically excluded.
The Conservative View:
The conservative school of thought fails to address the perspectives of the impoverished that results in oppressive social welfare policies. The conservative school understands the poor consisting of minorities (women, blacks and immigrants). As Schram (1995), suggest the conservative thought views the behavior of individuals as the cause of poverty. For example, Mead (2000) postulates that poverty results from negative behavior of non-working people. The objective supposition from the conservative view results in biases that avoid bringing in individual interpretation in research (Schram, 1995). The policies advances leave out any analysis of the needs and imaginaries of those minorities the conservatives perceive as impoverished. As a result oppressive paternalistic policy materially enforces appropriate behavior standards that are set by the non-...
... middle of paper ...
...J., Weigt, J. and Gonzales, L. (2006). Living Economic Restructuring at the Bottom: Welfare Restructuring and Low-Wage Work. . In Kilty, K., and Segal, E., (Eds.). The Promise of Welfare Reform: Political Rhetoric and the Reality of Poverty in the Twenty First Century. (pp. 81-96). Haworth Press, NY.
Schram, S. (1995). Suffer in silence: The Subtext of Social Policy Research. In Words of Welfare: The Poverty of Social Science and the Social Science of Poverty. (pp. 3-19). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
Wacquant, L., Wilson, W.J., (1989). The Cost of Racial and class Exclusion in the Inner City. In Lin, J., and Mele, C., (Eds.). The Urban Sociology Reader. (pp. 124-133). Routledge, New York, NY.
Wilson, W.J. (1996). From Instituional to Jobless Ghettos. In R.T. Legates, & F. Stout (Eds.). The City Reader (pp. 110-119). New York, NY: Routledge.
Having set the stage, the welfare reformers began the attack on the welfare state by targeting AFDC, the most vulnerable and least popular welfare program. Drawing on social science theories that blamed poverty on the values and behavior of the poor, the reformers put forward the belief that social problems stemmed from a “culture of poverty” that promoted “defective” values and “deviant” behavior.
...th what little they have, however; why is it left to the poor to have to suffer the consequences of these political choices. The persistence of extreme poverty and social ills speak to a situation that bears for a different approach. It is clear that capitalism and free market solutions cannot spread wealth as advocated. American governments have shown their reluctance to admit this discrepancy through the strategic creations of welfare policies and welfare reform coupled with placing blame upon the citizens who possess little power to change market decisions that govern and effect their lives.
Zuberi, Dan. Differences that Matter: Social Policy and the Working Poor in the United. New York: Cornell University Press, 2006.
The article “As American As Apple Pie” is about, poverty and welfare and how they are looked down upon and treated with suspicion or outright antagonism, and how many associate those in poverty with negative stereotypes often seen as deviant such as homeless, lazy, and criminals. Mark R. Rank points out how poverty across the world is a lot more normal than we think it might be. Some people are at greater risk than others, depending on age, race, gender, family structure, community of residence, education, work skills, and physical disabilities. This article provides the readers with data and analysis of American poverty and welfare over the course of the past 25 years. Rank also talks about how we have framed the poverty issue, and how we should frame it.
The concept of the "working poor" has gained prominence in the post-welfare reform era. As welfare rolls shrunk, the focus shifted from the dependent poor to the working poor. It was obvious that without substantial outside support, even families with full-time low-wage workers were still earning less than the official poverty line. And while American society purports that anyone can prosper if they work hard enough, it became apparent that with inadequate opportunity or bad luck, a growing number of families could not attain the American dream, or even break the cycle of poverty. The new challenge for American social policy is to help the working poor lift themselves out of poverty. That's why progressives who supported ending welfare as we know it have set a new goal -- the government should "make work pay" so that no one who works full time is poor.
In her article, “Sustainable Social Policy: Fighting Poverty Without Poverty Programs,” Theda Skocpol argues that universal programs that benefit all citizens address poverty more effectively than targeted ones. Skocpol argues from a theoretical basis, implying that the political success of assistance programs is of paramount importance. She posits that such programs are “politically sustainable,” because they almost exclusively target low-income families. The arbitrary measures used to determine who benefits and who doesn’t may lead social unrest. Skocpol provides a basic example; struggling families who fall short of becoming beneficiaries are angered by the fact that they must pay for someone else’s benefits. Consequently, those who are
The morality of social welfare systems, or the morality of crafting laws to aid American citizens in poverty, is a subject that (like myriad ethical issues) is hotly debated to say the least. For example, some opponents of social welfare institutions maintain the view that such programs "increase the reward or reduce the penalties" of poverty; thereby ostensibly making an impoverished state appealing even to people who might initially have been motivated to earn a living by conventional means. In other words, welfare programs (according to opponents) encourage otherwise productive individuals to embrace laziness, for basic human needs would be met by such institutions, eliminating the need to work at all. Those opposed to social welfare plans have also been known to claim that an "unfair burden is placed upon workers who must pay for the system." When one considers the above opposing views, it would then stand to reason that proponents of social welfare programs might maintain that it is the moral responsibility of working citizens to provide assistance and funding for programs such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the Food Stamp program, or the like. This supposition is confirmed upon examination of the notion that, when basic human needs such as "food, housing, and medical care" are not met, one is consequently rendered unable to uphold any level of social freedom. Given the above information, one can safely deduce that modern supporters of social welfare organizations are under the impression that such programs provide the impoverished masses with the means by which to obtain the level of general well-being vital to acquiring work in the first place.
Wilson, William J. More Than Just Race: Being Black and Poor in the Inner City. New York: Norton & Company, 2009. Print.
Blau, J. (2004). The dynamics of social welfare policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Wilson, William J. "Jobless Poverty." The Inequality Reader: Contemporary and Foundational Readings in Race, Class, and Gender. Ed. David B. Grusky and Szonja Szelenyi. 2md ed. Boulder, CO: Westview, 2011. 159-69. Print.
Wilson, W.J. (1996). From Instituional to Jobless Ghettos. In R.T. Legates, & F. Stout (Eds.). The City Reader (pp. 110-119). New York, NY: Routledge.
The Culture of Poverty is a theory that was introduced by Oscar Lewis, and is defined as “a label for a specific conceptual model that describes in positive terms a subculture of western society with its own structure and rationale, a way of life handed on from generation to generation.” (Lewis, p19) This concept which has helped shape the liberal discourse of the 1960s, purports that there are persons who remain mired in poverty because their lifestyle entrenches them in the low socioeconomic bracket which in turn obstructs their social mobility. David L. Harvey with contribution by Michael Reed, analyzed Lewis’ theory in their paper The Culture of Poverty: An Ideological Analysis. In this writing they concluded that Lewis was rooted in a Marxist background and argued that liberal and conservative thinkers have misinterpreted its application over the years. Harvey and Reed’s critique will be used to examine the conservative position on poverty that Lawrence Mead uses in his writing of The Logic of Workfare: the Underclass and Work Policy, and the validity of Harvey and Reed’s position will also be assessed.
In When Work Disappears, William Julius Wilson builds upon many of the insights he introduced in The Truly Disadvantaged, such as the rampant joblessness, social isolation, and lack of marriageable males that characterized many urban ghetto neighborhoods. In the class discussion, Professor Wilson argues that it is necessary to disassociate unemployment with joblessness, as the former only measures those still s...
Schwarz, J. E. (1990). WELFARE LIBERALISM, SOCIAL POLICY, AND POVERTY IN AMERICA. Policy Studies Review, 10(1), 127-139.
When discussing the issue of poverty and ‘the poor’, it is crucial to identify and explore the forces that lead to the social exclusion of the poor rather than focusing on the characteristics of these individuals. By focusing on these forces, it becomes easier to identify and explore possible ways to lessen poverty, empower the poor and alleviate social exclusion whereas focusing on the individual will not create a solution.