Theories of Poverty and Inequality

In order to develop policies that effectively reduce the problems associated with poverty and inequality, it is essential to have a sound theoretical understanding of these issues. In this section, an overview of the major theories of poverty will be provided. Later in the paper, these theoretical insights will provide guidance when discussing recommendations for developing community level poverty programs. Theories of poverty generally fall into two major categories: cultural and structural (Albrecht et al. 2000; Baca Zinn 1989; Duncan 1996). Cultural explanations are generally based on what has been called a "culture of poverty," in which the primary problem or fault lies with the individual (Lewis 1966; Shulman 1990). According to cultural theories of poverty, people are poor because they have a distinctive culturally determined way of life that largely explains the occurrence and persistence of poverty. Relevant aspects of this "defective" culture include a limited time horizon, impulsive need for gratification, low aspirations, and psychological self-doubt. When these aspects are taken together, the resulting worldview helps poor people to cope with pervasive hopelessness and despair. Poor families and communities then socialize their young with these ingrained values and norms, and consequently limit or obstruct their successful participation in mainstream institutions. The resulting "underclass" thus becomes permanent and is "locked into its own unique, but maladaptive culture" (Baca Zinn 1989:67; Banfield 1970; Mincy 1994).

Since their emergence, cultural theories have been criticized widely. Several analysts maintain, for example, that they "blame the victims" for their poverty (e.g., Baca Zinn 1989; Corcoran et al. 1985; Shulman 1990; Wilson and Aponte 1985). As a result, the search for a more thorough understanding of poverty has continued (Fitchen 1981; Massey and Denton 1993).

The second major category of theories of poverty is summarized in a series of structural perspectives in which the causes of poverty are sought in the social or economic system rather than in the individual (Gordon et al. 1982; Tomaskovic-Devey 1987). From a structural perspective, it is argued that people are poor because racism, sexism, and segregation limit or deny certain categories or groups of people access to training or jobs that are sufficient to maintain an acceptable standard of living or quality of life (Cobb 1992; Maril 1988; Massey and Denton 1993). In addition, people living in some areas of the country or working in some segments of the economy may lack sufficient access to high-quality jobs or economic opportunities (Duncan 1992; Lobao 1990). Further, the massive restructuring of the economy has contributed to the increased economic and social marginalization of entire groups of people.

Social science research has consistently found support for structural as opposed to cultural theories of poverty (Albrecht et al. 2000). The data presented earlier in this paper showing rates of poverty to be higher among nonmetro residents, minorities, persons residing in female-headed households and children provide direct support for structural theories. Surely poverty cannot be explained simply by arguing that it reflects individual "choices" to drop out of the labor-force or to acquire inferior education and skills. Thus, several recent attempts have been made to incorporate cultural elements into structural theories without blaming the victim (Duncan 1996). Especially relevant is the work of William Julius Wilson (1987) and Massey and Denton (1993). In The Truly Disadvantaged, Wilson maintains that persistent urban poverty results from the structural transformation of the inner-city economy. The decline of manufacturing, the loss of jobs to the suburbs, and the rise of low-wage service-sector employment dramatically reduce the number of inner-city jobs that pay wages sufficient to support a family. This situation leads, in turn, to high rates of unemployment and underemployment, and to shrinkage in the pool of male household heads financially able to support a family. Marriage thus becomes less attractive and less available to poor women, unwed childbearing increases, and female-headed families proliferate. This problem is exacerbated as large numbers of males out-migrate in search of more attractive employment, and the sex ratio becomes increasingly unbalanced (Albrecht and Albrecht 2001; Albrecht et al. 1997; Guttentag and Secord 1983). At the same time, middle-class persons abandon the inner city for suburban jobs, leaving behind destitute communities that lack the institutions, resources, and values necessary for success in a postindustrial society. The processes described by Wilson have been supported by recent ethnographic studies (e.g., Anderson 1999; Bourgois 1995) and researchers have found strong support for the Wilson model among both the black populations of urban areas (Eggers and Massey 1992), and in nonmetropolitan communities (Albrecht et al. 2000).

While recognizing the importance of the economic restructuring of the American workforce, Massey and Denton (1993) maintain that a more critical factor in the continued high rates of poverty, inequality and disadvantage for minority persons is that minority populations are physically isolated from majority populations. In metro communities, minority concentration means that minority groups tend to reside in residentially segregated and isolated sectors of the community. While within community residential segregation also occurs in nonmetro areas, an additional feature is that for many small communities, nearly all residents are minority and in sparsely populated areas, it may be significant distances to a community with a substantial majority population. Massey and Denton (1993) argue that economic restructuring, in the absence of segregation, would not have produced the disastrous social and economic outcomes that have been observed. Massey and Denton state that this physical isolation systematically undermines the economic well-being of minorities. This occurs because segregation concentrates poverty, which results in under-funded and ineffective institutions in minority communities. Minority residents of segregated communities not only lack the advantages of strong institutions, but they also have only limited contact with successful members of either the minority or majority community. Segregation has thus been instrumental in creating a structural niche in which a deleterious set of attitudes and behaviors has arisen and flourished. The result is a set of mutually reinforcing and self-feeding spirals of decline. Of greatest concern is that patterns of extensive segregation show little signs of change. Massey and Denton argue that until the ghetto is dismantled as a basic institution, progress ameliorating racial poverty and inequality in other arenas will be slow, fitful and incomplete.

Thus, from the perspective of Wilson (1987) and Massey and Denton (1993), the structural transformation of the economy and the structural persistence of segregation create circumstances conducive to high rates of poverty. With families in poverty and residents lacking the skills to maintain institutions that could compensate, the problem increases with each succeeding generation. In effect, poverty has primarily structural roots, but cultural values and lifestyles that exacerbate the problem eventually emerge (Albrecht et al. 2000). From this perspective, since poverty has structural causes, programs to decrease poverty levels must be based on changing problematic structures. Values and attitudes are generally a consequence of these structures.

back     next