Absolute & Relative Poverty (WJEC Eduqas GCSE Sociology): Revision Note

Defining and measuring poverty

• There is no single agreed definition of poverty, but sociologists usually distinguish between absolute and relative approaches

• Poverty can also be assessed using material and cultural deprivation indicators that reflect how people live day-to-day

Absolute poverty

• People experience absolute poverty when their income is not enough to afford the basic necessities for survival, i.e. a lack of:

  • food

  • clean water

  • shelter

  • clothing

  • heating

• E.g. someone who cannot afford food or heating in winter would be experiencing absolute poverty

• Absolute poverty is an objective measure; it is based on what people need to stay alive, rather than on social comparisons

Evaluation: absolute poverty

• This definition is useful for measuring global poverty and long-term trends

• However, it is still difficult to define the minimum that is needed to survive — standards vary between countries and over time

• In wealthy societies like the UK, very few people live in absolute poverty, so sociologists prefer relative measures

Relative poverty

• People experience relative poverty when their income is well below the average for society, so they cannot participate fully in everyday life

  • E.g. a family may be able to afford food and housing but not the internet, school trips, or clothes to “fit in” — leaving them socially excluded

• Poverty is relative to time and place — what counts as poor changes depending on social norms and expectations

• Sociologists such as Peter Townsend (1979) argue that using relative poverty as a measure gives a better picture of levels of social exclusion and inequality in a society (see below)

Evaluation: relative poverty

• Relative measures reflect inequality rather than just poverty — all capitalist societies will show some relative deprivation

• What one researcher considers a “need”, e.g. access to a car or the internet, may not be shared by others

• It is therefore partly subjective but still valuable for showing how people experience disadvantage in context

Measuring poverty

• The UK government’s official measure defines low income as below 60% of the national median income after housing costs

• Other measures include:

  • subjective poverty – based on whether people feel poor

  • environmental poverty – based on living conditions, e.g. overcrowded housing, lack of a garden and air pollution

• Material deprivation refers to lacking physical goods and services, such as technology, heating or safe housing

• Cultural deprivation refers to missing social experiences that aid success, such as trips, books or parental encouragement

Key thinker: Townsend (1979) – Poverty in the UK

Aim

• Peter Townsend set out to measure how many people in Britain were living in poverty and to develop a more accurate way to define it

• He argued that in a wealthy society poverty should be measured relatively, not by the government’s minimal “absolute” standard

Method

• Townsend carried out surveys with over 2000 households and 6000 individuals across the UK

• He created a Deprivation Index of 60 indicators, including:

  • diet, clothing and housing conditions

  • health, education, employment and working conditions

  • access to social and leisure activities

• Each household was given a deprivation score, and Townsend calculated a poverty threshold — the income level below which deprivation sharply increased

Findings and conclusions

• Townsend found that over 22% of the UK population were living in poverty (1968–69)

• This was much higher than the government’s official rate of 6%, based on absolute poverty, or the 9% based on relative income

• Groups most at risk included:

  • elderly people in unskilled manual jobs

  • children in low-income families or single-parent households

• Townsend concluded that poverty was a widespread and structural issue, not confined to a small “underclass”

Evaluation

• Townsend’s work was ground-breaking in showing that poverty exists even in affluent societies

• However, critics argued that his indicators were culturally biased — for example, not eating meat might be a lifestyle or religious choice, not a sign of deprivation

• Despite criticism, his relative deprivation index remains influential measuring poverty today

Cycle of deprivation

• Some families become trapped in a cycle of deprivation, where poverty passes from one generation to the next

• Material deprivation (lack of money, food, or housing) can lead to cultural deprivation (lack of experiences, encouragement, or confidence)

• Poverty in childhood often results in:

  • poor health and nutrition

  • limited education and qualifications

  • low-paid or insecure work in adulthood

• These conditions are then passed on to the next generation, perpetuating the cycle

Life chances consequence

• Poverty affects every aspect of life chances:

  • Poorer health and shorter life expectancy

  • Lower educational achievement, poor job prospects and limited social mobility

  • Higher likelihood of unemployment, homelessness, and social exclusion

• Children born into poverty are less likely to escape it, showing how inequality is reproduced across generations.

Sociological perspectives

Functionalism

• Functionalists link the cycle of deprivation to socialisation into the value consensus

  • They argue that some working-class families may fail to socialise their children effectively into the norms and values needed for educational and economic success

  • This results in children lacking motivation or aspiration, leading to continued disadvantage

• Policies such as Sure Start and early intervention aim to break the cycle by supporting families and improving parenting skills

Marxism

• Marxists reject the idea that poverty is caused by family failure

• They argue that the cycle of deprivation is created and maintained by capitalism, which needs a reserve army of cheap labour

• Poverty persists because wealth is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie, while the working class remains exploited

• Inequality in education, housing, and employment keeps working-class families trapped in deprivation

• Marxists call for structural change to break the cycle — not individual or moral reform

Feminism

• Feminists note that poverty often has a gendered pattern, with women and children more likely to be poor

• Single mothers face a higher risk of poverty due to the gender pay gap, childcare costs and part-time employment

• Women may experience a double burden — paid work and unpaid domestic labour — and in later life, a pension gap that deepens poverty

• Feminists argue that welfare systems and labour markets need to be more responsive to women’s economic circumstances to break the cycle