Social policy: concepts, frameworks, and applications

¶ … poverty?

When discussing poverty, not all are in agreement as to exactly what it means. There are various camps when it comes to defining poverty. Essentially, the definitions break down into either relative poverty or absolute poverty or more likely, something in between. Absolute poverty is categorized as not having the means to afford the absolute essentials. Relative poverty is a more liberal idea, based on one's ability to afford things, in comparison to others ability to afford the same things. Clearly, being unable to put food on the table is within the definition of poverty. However, when one begins looking at the type of food that one can afford to place on the table the lines become more indistinguishable. Based on two different surveys, "the evidence from these different sources of public opinion indicates that the public favours a relative or social inclusion approach to the definition of poverty" (Canadian Council on Social Development, 2000).

What is wrong with workfare?

Unfortunately, workfare doesn't "work" for everyone. In fact, it is precisely those who need it most that it excludes. Workfare is based on "the assumption that every person receiving government assistance is able to work for this assistance" (4 Social Workers, 2008). Clearly, many of those who most need assistance are not able to work for it for various reasons. For example, single parents with young dependent children face extreme difficulty finding adequate daycare and when found probably can not afford it. Additionally, when it comes to workfare, "able bodied Aboriginal people are willing and able to work, however they face the issue of being forced to conceal their identities in order to "fit in" with society. The inequalities that they have faced and continue to face are a barrier to fair and equal employment" (4 Social Workers, 2008). This problem, when viewed through a social inclusion framework, would be viewed as "raising the bar" instead of "removing the bar" (Armitage, 2003).

What is poor-bashing and why is it so powerful?

'Very simply put, poor-bashing is blaming the victim. It is a combination of many things that when combined form a systematic means of keeping the oppressed down. Poor bashing has its own vocabulary which is designed to denigrate the poor and make it seem as though it is their own fault that they are living a life of poverty. One hears terms such as lazy, welfare mom, deadbeat, boot straps, etc. All of these terms serve to exclude the poverty stricken from political power. Surely a lazy welfare mother's input is inconsequential to social or welfare policy. It is precisely because it acts an agent of exclusion that poor-bashing is so powerful' (Swanson, 2001).

What concerns you most about poverty and why?