Publication:
Who counts in poverty research?
Author(s): Edmiston, D.
Journal: The Sociological Review
Abstract. Mainstream poverty analysis currently renders certain people and degrees of privation more socially legible than others across high-income countries. This article examines how these hierarchies carry through to and corrupt wider social scientific analysis, inscribing differential value to actors and phenomena in ways that undermine social understanding and explanation. First, conventional approaches to poverty analysis and measurement obscure the de facto prevalence of deep poverty, as well as those most subject to its violence. Second, a growing number of hyper-marginalised groups are missing from population income surveys, undermining the accuracy of (deep) poverty estimates and public understanding of both its determinants and dynamics. Third, the inferential and external validity of income surveys is significantly diminished by problems surrounding data quality and coverage. Attempts to address this have principally focused on improving data quality, but as demonstrated in this article, these strategies exacerbate poor representation of the lowest-income groups in distributional analysis. Much more than merely technical or pragmatic, these are theoretical and normative judgements about who counts in welfare policy and politics. Overall, I demonstrate how current data practices occlude some the most violent forms of denigration and exploitation that structure advanced marginality, particularly the gendered, racialised, bordering and ableist practices underpinning state–citizen dynamics. Focusing principally on the UK context, I argue that the epistemic erasure committed features in and systematises a policy blindness to deep poverty for some of the most marginalised social groups making it harder to evidence its effects and address its causes across high-income countries.
Working Paper:
Singled Out? Changing Household Types, Poverty Risk and Welfare Effectiveness Across Europe
Author(s): Edmiston, D.
Abstract. Europe has uniquely high levels of living alone and has witnessed the most consistent upward trend in this household type globally in recent years. This poses a particular challenge for European welfare states, which have typically organised welfare provision and social policy around early, child-rearing or later life stages. There is some evidence to suggest single, childless households of working age have been some of the biggest losers from welfare state recalibration in recent years. Our paper adds to this literature to explore longer-term trends in poverty risk amongst single, childless households and welfare effectiveness across Europe. To do so, we answer the following questions: How has the changing composition of household structures affected poverty prevalence and trends across Europe? And what impact have taxes and transfers over time? Overall, we find that European tax and transfer systems tend to do a better job of lifting children, families and elderly people out of poverty, and reducing poverty risk, than they do at lifting single, childless households out of poverty. However, we find considerable variation, changes over time and non-trivial fault lines according to employment and administrative disability status. Over the last 20 years, this has changed the overall profile and composition of the (deeply) poor across Europe. Our findings illustrate the need to move beyond an examination of the absorptive functions of family to consider how household structures mediate access to, and adequacy, of working-age welfare for those falling into the deepest forms of poverty.
Working Paper:
Trust, Poverty and Welfare Receipt: A Cross-National Comparison
Author(s): Alcañiz Colomer, J.
Abstract. The extent of institutional trust within any given society has profound social and political implications. Low trust in political systems reduces engagement through institutional channels, as well as social, and interpersonal trust. Socioeconomic position plays a key role, with higher status correlating to greater trust. The absence of such trust can have particularly adverse effects on individuals living in poverty, who are already marginalised and tend to exhibit lower levels of political participation. Social programs often prioritise healthcare and pensions, while social exclusion programs are underfunded and difficult to access. In this sense, a key factor contributing to the greater disengagement of low-income or vulnerable individuals may stem from their dissatisfaction with the poor functioning of the welfare state or social policies. Middle-class individuals benefiting from these programs tend to report higher trust, whereas those reliant on limited, stigmatizing assistance experience lower trust. This study uses data from the 2013 EU-SILC dataset to examine the relationship between socioeconomic position, welfare receipt, and institutional trust. We measure poverty through disposable income, material deprivation, and multidimensional poverty, and assess the impact of different types of social assistance on trust. Our findings highlight the importance of focusing the analysis on deep poverty and demonstrate how welfare systems influence institutional trust based on the type and extent of assistance received. Ultimately, the results underscore the role of lived experiences with welfare institutions in shaping trust, with both socioeconomic factors and the nature of welfare engagement playing a critical role.
Working Paper:
Exploring the Relationship between Poverty Depth and Persistence: Evidence on the Role of Social Safety Nets
Author(s): Orujova, L.
Abstract. The poverty status is not static; individuals enter and exit poverty and destitution throughout the course of their lives. Many scholars have acknowledged the dynamic nature of income poverty and attempted to measure and estimate the persistence of poverty. Existing empirical literature shows significant levels of poverty persistence across European countries. However, recent studies assume that poverty is a “short-memory process”, that is, only considered from one period to another. Moreover, many do not take into account the depth of poverty while analysing poverty persistence. Although the “scarring effect” of poverty is recognised by these studies, i.e. how entering and staying in poverty can lead to a vicious circle of chronic/persistent poverty, the analysis rarely explores the potentially deepening poverty among those who stay poor. This paper aims to contribute to the literature by addressing these caveats by answering the following questions: Does being in (shallow) income poverty for longer periods lead to a transition into deeper forms of income poverty? Who is at the most risk of falling into deep poverty among the nonpoor or persistently poor? As the second part of the analysis, the study explores the mitigating role of social security systems in breaking poverty cycles, and preventing deep poverty. For this purpose, we utilise recent longitudinal waves of the EU-SILC dataset, and several European countries with various social policy regimes are chosen for the analysis.