Poverty, Wealth, and Income (AQA A-Level Sociology): Revision Notes

Poverty Distribution in the UK

Household composition and poverty rates

Poverty affects different household types in varying ways. The 2013 data shows clear patterns in how poverty is distributed across different family structures. Single elderly people aged 65+ experience the highest poverty rates at 24.3%, followed by single people under 65 at 19.2%. In contrast, couples with adult children have the lowest poverty rate at just 2.9%.

The data reveals that living arrangements significantly influence poverty risk. Households with dependent children face moderate poverty rates (15.2% for couples, 10.7% for lone parents), whilst childless couples under 65 experience relatively low poverty at 7.7%.

The elderly population

Nearly a quarter of elderly people experience poverty, but this group shows considerable diversity. The elderly population cannot be viewed as uniform - there are distinct subgroups with vastly different economic circumstances.

Grey panthers represent affluent pensioners who enjoy comfortable retirements through occupational pensions and accumulated savings alongside state pensions. However, pensioners who rely solely on state benefits often face difficult living conditions. Single elderly people are particularly vulnerable compared to elderly couples, who can share living costs and potentially have dual pension incomes.

The economic position of elderly people reflects their working lives - those with good employment histories and pension contributions fare much better than those with interrupted careers or low-paid employment.

Single person households

Single people under 65 represent the second-largest group experiencing poverty at 19.2%. This vulnerability stems from their inability to pool incomes and share living expenses, unlike couples. Housing costs, utilities, and other fixed expenses consume a larger proportion of single people's income compared to couples who can divide these costs.

Single people cannot benefit from the economies of scale that couple households enjoy, making them particularly susceptible to financial hardship when facing employment difficulties or benefit reductions.

Families with children

Children significantly increase household poverty risk due to the substantial costs involved in raising them. Research indicates that raising a child from birth to age 18 costs approximately £148,000 (2013 figures), creating considerable financial pressure on families.

Couples with dependent children face poverty rates of 15.2%, substantially higher than childless couples at 7.7%. The presence of children reduces household earning capacity as parents may need to work part-time or take career breaks for childcare responsibilities.

Lone parents with dependent children experience poverty at 10.7%, facing particular challenges as sole income providers whilst managing childcare duties. Large families with three or more children face even greater poverty risks, being twice as likely to have no employed parent and more likely to earn low incomes when in work.

Importantly, most poor families have only one or two children, indicating that family size alone doesn't determine poverty status, though it remains a contributing risk factor.

Childless couples

The Joseph Rowntree Trust research by Parekh et al (2010) highlighted growing poverty among childless couples, reaching record levels despite government efforts to reduce pensioner poverty through initiatives like Child Tax Credit.

Benefit erosion significantly impacts childless adults receiving benefits. Changes to how benefits are updated annually can gradually reduce their real value, creating long-term consequences for those dependent on state support. This erosion compounds the lived experience of poverty and social exclusion for those already facing financial hardship.

Low-paid employment

The New Policy Institute's annual Monitoring Poverty report (MacInnes et al, 2013) revealed that 4.4 million jobs paid less than £7 per hour. Low-paid work concentrates in hospitality, retail, transport, and service sectors, with employment insecurity often forcing workers to move frequently between jobs.

In-work poverty now exceeds workless poverty, with 6.1 million people in working households experiencing poverty compared to 5.1 million in workless households (excluding pensioners). Additionally, 1.4 million people work part-time but desire full-time employment, representing a 500,000 increase since 2009.

Working Tax Credit recipients - payments supplementing low wages - rose by 50% between 2003 and 2012, reaching 3.3 million households. This demonstrates how employment alone cannot guarantee escape from poverty when wages remain insufficient for basic living costs.

Contemporary context

Currently, one in five UK residents live in poverty. Oxfam (2014) identified how cuts to social security and public services combine with falling incomes and rising costs for essentials like food and fuel to create increasingly difficult circumstances.

Although unemployment figures may decrease, insecure employment and inadequate wages mean many people cannot achieve financial stability. The high turnover in benefit claims illustrates poverty's dynamic nature - over a two-year period, 5 million people claimed Jobseeker's Allowance, with 42% making new claims within six months of their previous claim ending.

Gender and poverty

Women experience slightly higher poverty rates than men - 21% compared to 19% in 2014. Single women face marginally higher poverty risks than single men (28% versus 25%), primarily due to single female pensioners and lone mothers being more likely to experience low incomes than their male counterparts.

Interestingly, no gender difference exists among working-age singles without children, and the overall gender gap has halved over the past decade. This reduction reflects decreased numbers of single pensioners and lone parents in poverty - traditionally female-dominated groups experiencing financial hardship. Meanwhile, poverty has increased among working-age singles without children and couples with children - groups where women are not predominant.

Helen Barnard (2013) argues that part-time job quality significantly impacts women's economic position. Many women accept employment below their skill level to accommodate childcare responsibilities, which subsequently affects lower-skilled women who face increased competition for available positions.

Ethnic minorities and poverty

Poverty rates among black and minority ethnic (BME) communities reach approximately 40%, double the rate for white people (20%). Specific groups show even higher rates: 30% of Indians and Caribbeans, 50% of black Africans, 60% of Pakistanis, and 70% of Bangladeshis experience poverty, compared to less than 25% of the overall UK population.

Within BME communities, considerable variation exists in income and experiences. Key poverty drivers include family size, unemployment, and adherence to traditional family structures with single breadwinners. However, these factors cannot fully explain the disparities observed.

Discrimination appears central to BME groups' poverty risks. Weber analysis suggests that BME communities lack status compared to other groups, with prejudice and discrimination undermining their labour market position. Lucinda Platt's (2006) Equal Opportunities Commission research found BME men experiencing unemployment rates up to four times the average, whilst Caribbean women, despite higher economic activity than other BME women, remained more likely to experience poverty due to concentration in low-paid employment.

Barnard and Turner (2011) emphasised intersectionality as vital for understanding how ethnicity combines with other factors to shape individual experiences and outcomes. They identified poverty outcomes as influenced by informal processes (everyday life texture) and wider structures including labour markets, housing options, services, geography, and social norms.

Rural poverty

Guy Palmer (2004) challenged assumptions that poverty only affects urban areas or deprived housing estates. His study of 400,000 rural residents in eastern England found one-sixth of rural households had incomes below the government's poverty threshold. Significantly, half these households included at least one employed person, demonstrating that rural poverty stems not just from unemployment but also low wages.

Rural poverty also affected people with limiting, long-standing illnesses - many being older residents. This highlights the importance of including older people in social exclusion analysis and recognising that rural areas face distinct poverty challenges.

Disability and poverty

Approximately one-third of disabled adults aged 25-65 live in low-income households - twice the rate for non-disabled adults. Working-age disabled people experience higher poverty risks primarily because they face greater barriers to employment participation.

Recent benefit changes have made disabled people particularly vulnerable to poverty. The shift towards universal credit and introduction of the 'bedroom tax' in 2013 especially affected disabled households. Additionally, plans for online benefit applications discriminate against disabled people, as only 58% have internet access compared to the national average of 84%.

Work Capacity Assessments (WCAs) or 'fit for work' tests have applied to all disabled people since 2008. In 2013, the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) was replaced by the more restrictive Personal Independence Payment (PIP). Roddy Slorach (2012) claims these changes aimed to remove benefits from 20% (500,000 people) of previous DLA recipients, with no equivalent mobility component under PIP for those aged 65 or over.

Government figures indicate that restricting total benefits to £26,000 will mean 450,000 disabled people losing an average of £676 yearly, clearly impacting both absolute and relative poverty levels within this group.

Key research findings

Flaherty et al (2004) discovered that people more readily apply the term 'deprivation' to nearby areas rather than their own circumstances. Those experiencing poverty often minimise their disadvantage as a coping mechanism for living on low incomes whilst managing the social stigma associated with poverty.

Contemporary policy changes, such as declining Sure Start programmes and early years education curriculum modifications, tend to disproportionately affect ethnic groups concentrated in lower working-class positions. The full impact of these changes will take years to measure across different communities.