Stigma of Urban Poverty History

Stigma of Urban Poverty

History of Stigma of Urban Poverty

In the medieval period in Europe, the church assumed the responsibility for taking care of the poor. The Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601 demonstrated ethics of the Protestant church with humanitarianism. Charles Zastrow (2009), Professor at George William College of Aurora University, Williams Bay, Wisconsin, examines a number of components relating to urban poverty in the book, Introduction to social work and social welfare: Empowering people." Zastrow explains that the English government enacted the1601 Poor Law in response to the general public's perception that begging, albeit not specifically poverty, comprised a significant social problem. Consequently, three distinct scenarios for caring for the needy evolved:

The government offered the person able to work the opportunity to work. If the individual chose not to work he would be whipped, imprisoned or sent back to the country of his birth.

The individual not capable of working, for example, the disabled or the elderly, received public assistance or was place in an almshouse.

3. The parent who could not provide for his/her child/ren had to send the child/ren to live as an apprentice with other capable adults (Zastrow, 2009).

The Poor Law set up principles for assisting individuals by separating the individuals able to work from those who refused to or could not work. The law categorized those able to work but choosing not to work as the undeserving poor. Those disabled individuals, on the other hand, the law determined, deserved help. The principals contained in this Poor Law established the ensuing "relief programs" for colonial America. Zastrow (2009) explains "a problem with the absolute definition of poverty is that is does not take into account the fact that people are poor not only in terms of their own needs but also in relation to others who are not poor" (p. 121). This simply means that poverty correlates to a particular time and location.

Individuals considered poor in contemporary times living in the United States, the UK, and some of the other developed countries would not necessarily be considered poor by standards of 1850. Nor might some of these "poor" individuals be considered poor if compared to individuals in underdeveloped countries. In contemporary times, perceptions of poverty relate to the conditions of one's own society and its standards. Zastrow (2009) explains that the federal government (U.S.) "has generally chosen the absolute approach in defining poverty. The poverty line is raised each year to adjust for inflation. In 2008[,] the government set the poverty line at $21,200, for a family of four" (p. 121). Historically as well as in contemporary times, researchers have suggested numerous reasons and possible causes for poverty. Figure 1 depicts some of these reported reasons.

Figure 1: Reasons for Poverty (adapted from Zastrow, 2009, p. 123).

Figure 1 depicts only a few of the myriad of possible causes for poverty. Researchers such as Brieland, Costin and Atherton, according to Zastrow (2009), assert that eliminating the causes of poverty would require the implementation of a vast amount of social programs. Oscar Lewis, an anthropologist, asserts that poverty may be passed down from generation to generation, consequently creating a cycle or "culture of poverty." After evaluating low-income or poor neighborhoods throughout the world, Lewis suggested that the culture or lifestyle of the poor distinctly differs from those not characterized as poor. One distinction: "The culture of poverty arises after extended periods of economic deprivation in highly stratified capitalistic societies" (Zastrow, 2009, p. 124). High unemployment rates as well as low wages for the employed individuals may contribute to creating and maintaining the cycle of economic deprivation. In turn, this may lead to some of the poor adopting hopeless attitudes and/or standards.

Over the past 60 years, poverty among individuals living in inner cities throughout the U.S. has persistently resisted public policy remedies. Michael B. Teitz and Karen Chapple (1998), both with the Public Policy Institute of California and the University of California, Berkeley, as Zastrow (2009), investigate causes contributing to poverty. In the journal publication, "The causes of inner-city poverty: Eight hypotheses in search of reality," Teitz and Chapple report that despite efforts to remedy the concern, an increasingly widening gap exists between their economic well-being of African-Americans and Latinos and that of the mainstream population. To address the continuing growing problem of urban poverty, researchers search to uncover underlying reasons for the phenomenon.

During their study, Teitz and Chapple (1998) analyzed and reviewed much of the published research on urban poverty and organized their findings into eight extensive hypothesis: a) Adverse; b) racial and income segregation; c) adverse consequences of public policy;

d) cultural and behavioral factors; e) inadequate human capital; f) impacts of migration; g) lack of endogenous growth; h) gender discrimination; i) racial and gender discrimination and structural shifts in the economy. The following table presents a synopsis of the eight hypotheses Teitz and Chapple relate regarding causes contributing to inner-city poverty.

Table: Eight Hypotheses on Inner-City Policy (adapted from Teitz & Chapple, 1998, p. 37).

Structural Shifts in the Economy

Extensive structural economic shifts that deteriorated the competitive position of inner-cities, particularly in the industrial sectors which typically employ minorities and the working poor

Inadequate Human Capital

Inner-city poverty reflects the insufficient human capital of the labor force; resulting in decreased productivity; preventing individuals to compete in developing sectors which typically pay higher wages.

Racial and Gender Discrimination

Inner-city poverty culminates from continual racial and gender discrimination in places of employment, which hinders individuals from attaining their highest potential in the employment sectors.

Interaction of Culture and Behavior

Inner-city poverty comes from the intricate relationship between behavior and culture, producing a population certain to be isolated and disconnected from the established economy and employment sectors.

Spatial Mismatch

The extended, attested practice of segregating minority and low-income individuals in cities in the United States, which stimulated a spatial mismatch between jobs and working individuals, especially when employment dispersed.

Migration

The migration process, which simultaneously dismisses the middle class and advantaged individuals of a community; in turn reducing the social capital by bringing in newer low-income individuals, unable to compete in the employment sectors; driving down wages and decreasing opportunities for individuals to gain employment.

Endogenous Growth Deficit

Inner-city poverty emulates an interior growth loss, resulting from reduced levels of entrepreneurship and obtaining capital, particularly among minority and low income individuals.

Public Policy

The unexpected consequence of public policies designed to relieve social issues that fail to do so; some of the issues and social problems have magnified in certain aspects

The prejudice poor minorities in urban areas experience tends to replicate from one generation to the next. Many consider the that political system, which depicts one particularly challenging factor contributing to this ongoing negative cycle, needs to accept responsible for breaking the cycle of poverty. In the journal article, "Do highly exclusive social welfare programs increase political inequality? A comparative analysis of the 50 U.S. States," Eric Plutzer (2010), with the Department of Political Science, Pennsylvania State University, argues that particular policy could diminish and potentially break cycles of poverty as " participation influences policies, policies influence economic status, and economic status influences participation" (p. 8). Figure 2 depicts a political and social cycle that potentially contributes to cumulative societal advantage and disadvantage.

Figure 2: Political Social Cycle of Poverty (Plutzer, 2010, p. 8).

During the 1980s, distribution-sensitive poverty indexes comprised the focus of the majority of research poverty. In the 1990s, the focus of the research transitioned to revising how to best measure the poverty line and economic resources. James P. Ziliak (2005), Microeconomics in the Department of Economics, University of Kentucky, stresses that even though poverty measurement research continues to abound among economists, the need for more research to better address poverty continues. In the journal article, "5 Recommendations," Ziliak stresses that accurately measuring poverty serves as a vital initial step for a nation to "to quantify the scale of economic disadvantage and for the attendant design of anti-poverty programs and policies" (¶ 1). Ziliak also argues that although income constitutes the best prime metric of economic resources for poverty, it needs to be redefined and modified to include the dollar value of numerous "near-cash in-kind transfers" like food stamps, school breakfasts and lunches, Wic, subsidized housing, and other payments; capital gains; Federal and state income taxes; etc. Ziliak prefers income-based poverty measurement over consumption-based poverty, yet purports that inherent issues relating to both measures mandate more investigation.

Stigmas

Glenn Reeder and John Pryor (2008), both affiliated with the Chicago Consortium for Stigma Research, explain that an individual's associative thinking generally dominates his/her immediate reactions to a stigmatized person. The person, however, may quickly begin to implement more deliberative, rule-based mental processing regarding stigma. In the journal article, "Dual Psychological Processes Underlying Public Stigma and the Implications for Reducing Stigma," Reeder and Pryor point out that stigma possesses both private and public faces. Stigma's private face "often involves feelings of grief, loss of control and anxiety on the part of the person who is stigmatized. The public face of stigma involves the general public's negative beliefs, feelings and behaviours directed toward those with a stigma" (¶ 4). Public stigma may contribute to a cycle of poverty by: a) Employers discriminating against obese individuals or those who may be HIV-infected or mentally ill. b) Being poor, per se, may contribute to even more public stigmatization.

Self-stigma and public stigma closely connect, Reeder and Pryor (2008) stress . The degree an individual perceives that his/her employers, family, family, and landlords possess stigmatizing attitudes; he/she will likely experience the pain of self-stigma. One's awareness of public stigma frequently promotes self-stigma.

A stigma, similar to a disease may spread from one individual to another. The individual who decides to affiliate with a member of a stigmatized group may acquire a courtesy stigma. In a sense, as the individual gains admission into the stigmatized category, both the stigmatized group's members as well as those outside the group treat the individual as if the stigma taints him/her. Josh Otlin (2008), ethics, history, and economics educator in Hudson, Massachusetts, asserts that the majority of individuals stigmatized as the urban poor do not deliberately desire nor plan to be poor; that they would prefer not to be the object of charity.

In the journal article, "Left out: Perspectives on social exclusion and inclusion across income groups," Miriam Stewart, et al. (2008), Faculty of Nursing and School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Canada, explains that social exclusion may stimulate a person to experience low self-esteem, internalize blame, and feel powerlessness. Social exclusion "refers to deeply embedded societal processes whereby certain groups are unable to fully participate in and benefit from major societal institutions, and experience economic, political and social deprivations and inequalities" (Stewart, et al. ¶ 2). Because of being socially excluded, a person may deliberately avoid participating in community life. Processes of social exclusion may also produce corresponding adverse affects on the socially stigmatized, excluded individual's health and well-being.